Strite v. McGinnes, 379 U.S. 836 (1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Strite v. McGinnes, 379 U.S. 836 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
64 citation events across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, Incorporated (ca3, 1995-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, Incorporated
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strite v. McGinnes, 330 F.2d 234, 239 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 69 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964) (the words employed are given "their plain and ordinary meaning, except where the context in which they are used renders then a different denotation, or where legal or technical words are used and it is clear from their use that the legal or technical meaning was intended.").
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc.
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strite v. McGinnes, 330 F.2d 234, 239 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 69 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964) (the words employed are given “their plain and ordinary meaning, except where the context in which they are used renders then a different denotation, or where legal or technical words are used and it is clear from their use that the legal or technical meaning was intended.”).
discussed Cited "see" Estate of Vissering v. Commissioner (2×)
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strife v. McGinnes, 330 F.2d 234 , 240 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 379 U.S. 836 (1964) (“The search of §2041 is the breadth of power given a decedent. * * * Good faith exercise of a power is not determinative of its breadth.”).
cited Cited "see" Schweitzer, Josephine v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Seibert, Mildred, Individually and as of the Estate of Seibert, Paul D., Deceased v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) the Reading Company. Wentzel, George A. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Elaine Schwambach, of the Estate of Woodrow W. Schwambach and Merlin Schwambach, of That Estate v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Frank, Marilyn L., as of the Estate of Russell C. Wennell, Deceased v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Scholl, Martin H., Individually and as of the Estate of Ethel M. Scholl, Deceased v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Fenstermacher, Earl R., and Scholing, Carl v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, a Corporation, and the Reading Company, a Corporation v. Anchor Packing Company, Celotex Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, Philip Carey Corporation, Briggs Manufacturing Company And/or Panacon Corporation, Certainteed Corporation, Durox Equipment Company, Garlock, Inc., Janos Industrial Insulation Corporation, John Crane- Houdaille, Inc., J.W. Roberts Ltd., Keene Corporation, Nicolet, Inc., Nosroc Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to G. & W.H. Corson, Inc. And Calcite Quarry Corporation, Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., Tannetics, Inc., Turner & Newall Plc, Turner Asbestos Fibers Ltd., Union Rubber, Inc. And Vellumoid Company, Third-Party Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. And Flintkote Company. Appeal of Fenstermacher, Earl R., in No. 84-1203. Appeal of Scholing, Carl, in No. 84-1204. Josephine Schweitzer, Mildred Seibert, Individually and as of the Estate of Paul D. Seibert, Deceased, George A. Wentzel, Elaine Schwambach, of the Estate of Woodrow W. Schwambach, and Merlin Schwambach, of That Estate, Marilyn L. Frank, as of the Estate of Russell C. Wennell, Deceased, Martin H. Scholl, Individually and as of the Estate of Ethel M. Scholl, Deceased v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and the Reading Company. Appeal of Consolidated Rail Corporation. (Two Cases) Earl R. Fenstermacher and Carl Scholing v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, a Corporation, and the Reading Company, a Corporation v. Anchor Packing Company, Celotex Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to Philip Carey Manufacturing Company, Philip Carey Corporation, Briggs Manufacturing Company And/or Panacon Corporation, Certainteed Corporation, Durox Equipment Company, Garlock, Inc., Janos Industrial Insulation Corporation, John Crane- Houdaille, Inc., J.W. Roberts Ltd., Keene Corporation, Nicolet, Inc., Nosroc Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to G. & W.H. Corson, Inc. And Calcite Quarry Corporation, Studebaker-Worthington, Inc., Tannetics, Inc., Turner & Newall Plc, Turner Asbestos Fibers Ltd., Union Rubber, Inc. And Vellumoid Company, Third-Party Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. And Flintkote Company. In the Matter of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Debtor, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenor, Andrew Thomas and Trudell Thomas, His Wife, Appeal of Andrew Thomas and Trudell Thomas, in No. 84-5293. Appeal of Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenor in No. 84-5310. In the Matter of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Debtor, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenor . Appeal of Joseph Pongrac, Sr., Robert A. Bingle, Alexander Redelico and Evelyn Redelico, H/w, Joseph C. Popadick and Elma Popadick, H/w, Edward Witos and Philomena Witos, H/w, Mark Gammel, Harry Guralchuk, Steve Palichak, Joseph M. Pinto, Frank Pongrac, Jr., John Sowizral, Harry Wilson, George J. Zeblisky, Robert J.F. Brobyn, Richard Middleton and Any and All Persons Acting on Their Behalf
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tate v. National Acceptance Company (In re Leeds Homes, Inc.), 332 F.2d 648, 649-50 (6th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 71 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964).
cited Cited "see" Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tate v. National Acceptance Company (In re Leeds Homes, Inc.), 332 F.2d 648, 649-50 (6th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 71 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964).
discussed Cited "see" Maytag v. United States
1st Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strite v. McGinnes, 330 F.2d 234 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 69 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964); Miller v. United States, 387 F.2d 866 (3rd Cir. 1968). 19 The standard to be gleaned from these cases is that a beneficiary who is also a trustee is not prevented from holding a general power of appointment, at least where the settlor grants beneficiary such a power free from obstruction by other adverse parties.
cited Cited "see" Maytag v. United States
10th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Strite v. McGinnes, 330 F.2d 234 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 69 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964); Miller v. United States, 387 F.2d 866 (3rd Cir. 1968).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Carpenter
W.D. Tenn. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Leeds Homes, Inc., 222 F.Supp. 20 (E.D.Tenn.1963), aff’d 332 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied Tate v. National Acceptance Co., 379 U.S. 836 , 85 S.Ct. 71 , 13 L.Ed.2d 43 (1964), where Judge Frank Wilson held that the allowance of interest to secured creditors under this exception was a matter within the discretion of the court considering the equities involved. 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Strite, Executors
v.
McGinnes, District Director of Internal Revenue
No. 258.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1964.
379 U.S. 836
Henry D. O’Connor for petitioners. Solicitor General Cox and Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer for respondent.
Published

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.