Citation network
Graves Vs. Schmidlapp
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1942
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
-
U.S. 657 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Graves v. SchmidlappSearch
-
U.S. 657 (1942) Graves v. SchmidlappSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the property appointed being intangibles held by trustees under the donor's will. Wachovia Bank Trudt Co v. DaughtonSearch
-
a power of appointment created by a Page 315 U. S. 660 nonresident donor, citing Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. DoughtonSearch
-
of estate and inheritance taxation, the power to dispose of property at death is the equivalent of ownership. Bullen v. WisconsinSearch
-
Whitney v. StateSearch
-
to the financial support of government there, afford adequate constitutional basis for the imposition of a tax. Curry v. McCanlessSearch
-
Graves v. ElliottSearch
-
interest in intangibles by the state of its owner when they are held in trust in another state was rejected in Bullen v. WisconsinSearch
-
of the owner have been deemed to include the exercise or relinquishment of a power to dispose of intangibles. Chanler v. KelseySearch
-
Orr v. GilmanSearch
-
power to dispose of the intangibles at death was property in his hands in New York, where he was domiciled. Graves v. ElliottSearch
-
an enjoyment of a property right as would have been a like bequest to his widow from his own securities. See Helvering v. HorstSearch
-
in some respects, at least, there has been a valid and effective execution of the power of appointment. Sewall v. WilmerSearch
-
Hogarth-Swann v. WeedSearch
-
Hillen v. IselinSearch
-
to enjoy its benefits, must depend in part upon the law of the state of the debtor or of the corporation. Blodgett v. SilbermanSearch
-
of wealth at death by a resident is not a forbidden source of revenue to the state. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. DoughtonSearch
-
the demands of a system of justice based on a considered and a consistent application of the Constitution. See Burnet v. CoronadoSearch
-
Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393 , 285 U. S. 406 , footnote 1, and cf. Helvering v. MountainSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS concurs in the result only, because he considers himself bound by the decisions in Curry v. McCanlessSearch
-
U. S. 357 , and Graves v. ElliottSearch
-
See Orr v. GilmanSearch
-
Reinecke v. NorthernSearch
-
Chase National Bank v. UnitedSearch
-
Tyler v. UnitedSearch
-
See Kirtland v. HotchkissSearch
-
Hawley v. MaldenSearch
-
Cream of Wheat Co. v. GrandSearch
-
Virginia v. ImperialSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. StewartSearch
-
also Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Beidler v. SouthSearch
-
U. S. 1 (all recognizing the power of the state of domicile to tax). In the case of income taxation, see Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Graves v. SchmidlappSearch
-
Wachovia Bank Trudt Co v. DaughtonSearch
-
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. DoughtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial