Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Graves Vs. Elliott

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1939

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

39 entries 7 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Bullen Vs. Wisconsin US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1916
  2. Guaranty Trust Co. Vs. Blodgett US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1933
  3. Porter Vs. Commissioner US Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1933
  4. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1905
  5. Burnet Vs. Brooks US Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1933
  6. Curry Vs. Mccanless US Supreme Court · May 29, 1939
  7. Saltonstall Vs. Saltonstall US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1928
  8. U.S. 383 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Graves v. Elliott
    Search
  9. U.S. 383 (1939) Graves v. Elliott
    Search
  10. tax upon the relinquishment at death of the power of revocation, measured by the value of the intangibles. Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  11. public importance. The essential elements of the question presented here are the same as those considered in Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  12. life, of a power to revoke a trust created by a decedent is likewise an appropriate subject of taxation. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall
    Search
  13. Reinecke v. Northern
    Search
  14. Helvering v. City
    Search
  15. Keeney v. New
    Search
  16. Chase National Bank v. United
    Search
  17. Tyler v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 436 . For reasons stated in our opinion in Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  19. for imposition of a tax measured by the value of the intangibles transmitted or relinquished by her at death. Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  20. the land is elsewhere, does not give the State of his domicile the authority to tax. In Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky
    Search
  21. have seemed to justify such a tax on personal property by the the owner's domicile. But, as said in Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  22. has an actual situs in another State was applied by this Court to an inheritance or transfer tax in the case of Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  23. owner's domicile although the owner may Page 307 U. S. 390 keep the securities in another State. Blodgett v. Silberman
    Search
  24. in a metaphor. Still, in certain circumstances, the use of the metaphor is appropriate. New York ex rel. Whitney v. Graves
    Search
  25. prevent injustice, and it should not be unnecessarily extended so as to work an injury. Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky
    Search
  26. supra, p. 199 U. S. 208 . As we said in Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Virginia
    Search
  27. ad valorem property tax, depends upon the property's being attributable to the domain of the taxing State. Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  28. of a state statute, and it is not necessary again to review the authorities cited in the dissenting opinion in Curry v. McCanless
    Search
  29. U. S. 357 . For the present purpose, it is sufficient to note that, under the principle established in Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Graves v. Elliott
    Search
  31. Keeney v. New
    Search
  32. In Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky
    Search
  33. Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  34. of Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  35. State. Blodgett v. Silberman
    Search
  36. Whitney v. Graves
    Search
  37. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Virginia
    Search
  38. State. Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  39. Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial