Conlon v. Turley’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.2d 890 · 1926
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1989
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Martin v. . Funk · Allen-West Commission Co. v. Grumbles · Lee v. Lee · Supple v. Suffolk Savings Bank for Seamen · Lust v. Miller
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with the decree of the lower court. It is, of course, elementary that in order to constitute a valid gift, of property inter vivos there must in general be an actual delivery thereof to the donee, with an intention upon the part of the donor to divest himself of the title, dominion, and control over the subject of the gift, and to in vest the donee therewith. Lee v. Lee, 5 F.(2d) 767 , 55 App. D. C. 344 ; Lust v. Miller, Custodian, 4 F.(2d) 293 , 55 App. D. C. 217 ; 28 Corpus Juris, p. 626; Allen-West Co. v. Grumbles, 129 F. 287 , 63 C. C. A. 401 . Nevertheless, 'delivery of the property to a third person as agent or trustee for the use of the donee, and not as agent of the donor, under such circumstances as indicate that the donor relinquishes all dominion and control over the property, is a sufficient delivery to complete the gift, which in such ease is not revoked by the subsequent death of the donor before the property has been actually delivered to the donee. * * * Knowledge of the gift on the donee’s part is not necessary to render it effective, since the assent of the donee may be implied.’ 28 Corpus Juris, p. 640, § 32; 12 R. C. L. p. 934; Martin v. Funk, Adm’r, 75 N. Y. 134 , 31 Am. Rep. 446 . “The gift now in question responds to the foregoing conditions. The donor unconditionally parted with the possession of the bonds by delivering them to the bank as bailee for the donee alone, and accepted a receipt from the bank to that effect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garrett v. Keister
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.