Basket v. Hassell’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 602 · 1882
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 187 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 297 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably United States v. Wells (1931), Winters v. United States (1908)
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 187 state decisions — followed in 37 states
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 Bank of the Republic v. Millard · Grymes v. . Hone · Pierce v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank · Harris v. . Clark
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 297 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the instrument or document must be the evidence of a subsisting obligation, and be delivered to the donee, so as to vest him with an equitable title to the fund it represents, and to divest the donor of all present control and dominion over it, absolutely and irrevocably.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Basket v. Hassell · Wright v. Bragg“* * * A certificate of deposit is a subsisting chose in action and represents the fund it describes, as in cases of notes, bonds, and other securities, so that a delivery of it, as a gift, constitutes an equitable assignment of the money for which it calls.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyons v. Lyons · Boling v. Gibson““It is apparent that the sole controversy is between Basket and Hassell, the present parties to the appeal. By the delivery of the certificate of deposit to the clerk the attorneys of Basket are exonerated from all responsibility; and the payment of the money by the bank to Hassell equally relieves it and its officers; for, not being parties to the appeal, and the execution of the decree not having been superseded, the decree will always furnish them protection, whether affirmed or reversed, because, if reversed, it would only be so as between the parties to the appeal. So that the omitted parties have no legal interest, either in maintaining or reversing the decree, and, consequently, are not necessary parties to the appeal. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 203 [ 12 L. Ed. 404 ]; Cox v. United States, 6 Pet. 182 [ 8 L. Ed. 359 ]; Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 261 [ 20 L. Ed. 392 ]; Simpson v. Greely, 20 Wall. 152 [22 L. Ed; 338]. The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly overruled.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Prince v. McLaughlin
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.