The First National Bank of Kenosha, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ethel M. Rudy v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “[t]he discovery of oil [on a decedent’s estate] is the kind of subsequent event that the rule . . . makes inadmissible, for it is beyond the contemplation of the parties on the relevant valuation date” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• The fact a district court did not expressly articulate the standard it applied does not necessarily mean that it applied an erroneous standard
• “a rule has developed that subsequent events are not considered in fixing fair market value, except to the extent that they were reasonably foreseeable at the date of valuation”
• “The jury apparently did not accept whole-cloth the view of either of the experts, and arrived at its figure independently (very possibly, we suspect, by splitting the difference
• “a rule has developed that subsequent events are not considered in fixing fair market value, except to the extent that they were reasonably foreseeable at the date of valuation”
• “[A] rule has developed that subsequent events are not considered in fixing fair market value, except to the extent that they were reasonably foreseeable at the date of valuation[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).