Legal Opinion

State-Planters Bank & Trust Co. of Richmond v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided January 8, 1940No. Record No. 2221PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpratley, J.

The question presented in this case is whether or not Emilie Hanewinkle was a resident of this State, within the *292meaning of its tax laws, when she died in 1938. If her legal domicile was in Virginia, her estate was subject to an assessment for State inheritance taxes, — if not, the assessment was erroneous.

Miss Hanewinkle at one time resided in this State, with her domicile in the city of Richmond. She was a spinster of considerable means and without any family ties requiring her residence at any specific place. More than thirty years ago, perhaps forty, she left Virginia and went to Rome,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. Williamson v. OsentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Cooper's Adm'r v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1917
  4. Commonwealth v. RutherfoordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
  5. Pendleton v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1909

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
  2. Hatfill v. FosterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  3. Lotz v. AtamaniukWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Rogers v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
  5. Layton v. PribbleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1958

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API