UNITED STATES

v.

MALCOLM

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1945)
  …ore the death of the husband, is not impaired by the fact that the California courts later held that the wife’s interest in community property in that state is not so vested. Cf. United States v. Robbins, 269 U. S. 315 with United States v. Malcolm, 282 U. S. 792. The Moffitt case was decided upon the assumption that the wife’s interest was “vested.” See footnote 12, ante. Footnote 1, ante.…
• Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1950)
  …Mr. Justice Jackson, and I are unable to agree with the majority in this case. The husband’s earnings are community property under § 161a, California Civil Code. The wife has a vested interest in one-half of such earnings. United States v. Malcolm, 282 U. S. 792; Bank of America v. Mantz, 4 Cal. 2d 322, 49 P. 2d 279; Cooke v. Cooke, 65 Cal. App. 2d 260, 150 P. 2d 514. If the premiums on a policy in a private insurance company had been paid out of community property without [*662] the wife’s consent, the wi…
• United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1971)
  …ect to California community property law and federal income tax under the 1928 Act, with the Government conceding the effectiveness, in this respect, of amendments made to the California statutes since the Robbins decision. United States v. Malcolm, 282 U. S. 792 (1931). Significantly, the Court there answered in the affirmative, citing Seaborn, Koch, and Bacon, the following certified question: “Has the wife under § 161 (a) of the Civil Code of California such an interest in the community income that she s…