In re the Estate of Weiden
Cases that cite this one
48 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Fairclaw v. Forrest (D.C. Cir. 1942)
- In re the Estate of Hastings (New York Surrogate's Court 1944)
- In re the Estate of Pelis (New York Surrogate's Court 1934)
- In re the Estate of Harbord (New York Surrogate's Court 1951)
- In re the Appraisal under the Estate Tax Law of the Estate of Pratt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1941)
- In re the Estate of Anderson (New York Surrogate's Court 1939)
- Young v. Town of Huntington (New York Supreme Court 1976)
- In re the Estate of Tricarico (New York Surrogate's Court 1972)
- In re the Estate of Cushing (New York Surrogate's Court 1966)
- In re the Estate of Meyer (New York Surrogate's Court 1966)
- In re the Estate of Caro (New York Surrogate's Court 1965)
- In re the Estate of Behm (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- In re the Estate of Behm (New York Surrogate's Court 1962)
- In re Claim of Albertson (N.Y. 1960)
- Roosevelt Raceway, Inc. v. Bedell (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Marx v. Bragalini (N.Y. 1959)
- In re the Estate of Rhodes (New York Surrogate's Court 1949)
- In re the Estate of Walk (New York Surrogate's Court 1948)
- In re the Estate of Ayer (New York Surrogate's Court 1948)
- In re the Estate of Rogers (N.Y. 1946)
- In re the Estate of Cooper (New York Surrogate's Court 1946)
- In re the Estate of Buell (New York Surrogate's Court 1946)
- In re the Estate of Russell (N.Y. 1945)
- In re the Estate of Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1945)
- In re the Estate of Porter (New York Surrogate's Court 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In Tyler v. United States (281 U. S. 497); Gwinn v. Commissioner (287 U. S. 224); Third National Bank & Trust Co. v. White (287 U. S. 577) the Supreme Court has indicated that the tax does not violate the provisions of-the United States Constitution. We will apply the same rules in determining the effect of similar provisions of the Constitution of this State, for the purpose of maintaining the uniformity of administration of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60) which the Legislature has sought to achieve.
The orders of the Appellate Division and of the Surrogate should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate for the purpose of including in the transfer tax the estates by the entirety.
Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.