Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 MICH 8 - Moran v. Moran

Moran v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
July 1953
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1953

16 state decisions

501895190019101920193019401950decided

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 Fenn v. Holme · Foster v. Mora · Lessee of Robert Smith and Carey Butt v. William McCann · Nathan Hooper Louisa Hooper and Amanda Hooper Minors by Absalom Fowler Their Next Friend v. Jacob Scheimer · Nichol v. Thomas

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “_ “ The sole reason for avoiding the deed is that, at the time it was given, the plaintiff was incompetent to make it. No guardian had been appointed over him at that time, and none was appointed until 1887. As a record title, the deed of defendant is perfect; but plaintiff’s counsel insists that, while a court of equity might set aside the deed, yet the question is one which is triable in a court of law, before a jury, as well. We cannot agree with this contention. The record shows conclusively that no adjudication was had upon the incompetency of the plaintiff until after the deed had been executed. The deed was not, therefore, absolutely void, but voidable. Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217 ( 16 Am. Dec. 391 ); Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45 ; Carrier v. Sears, 4 Allen, 336 ( 81 Am. Dec. 707 ); Hallett v. Oakes, 1 Cush. 296 ; Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 Md. 299 ; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 453 ( 89 Am. Dec. 705 ); Breekenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh. 236 ( 19 Am. Dec. 71 ); Nichol v. Thomas, 53 Ind. 42 ; Eaton v. Eaton 37 N. J. Law, 108 ( 18 Am. Rep. 716 ).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.