118 Ind. App. 217 - Bulen v. Pendleton Banking Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Kraus v. KRAUS, ETC. (1956), 122 Ind. App. 502 - Tompkins v. Smith (1952)
2 federal appellate · 38 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 McKee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York · Wright v. Peabody Coal Co. · Devol v. Dye · Miller v. Coulter · Brown v. State
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A gift inter vivos of personal property or a chose in action is a voluntary act of transferring the right to and the possession of such chattel or chose in action whereby one person renounces and another acquires the immediate right and title thereto. An agreement, intention, or promise to make a gift effective in the future is void as being without consideration. To make a valid gift inter vivos there must be both an intention to give and a stripping of the donor of all dominion or control over the given thing and a change of title must be irrevocable. Words alone, unaccompanied by the delivery of immediate possession, are not sufficient to constitute a gift inter vivos, except where the gift is already in the possession of the donee. The transfer must be so complete that, if the donor again attempts to assume control of the property, without the consent of the donee, he becomes liable as a trespasser. Reasner, Admr. v. Bohne (1921), 76 Ind. App. 114, 118, 119 , 129 N.E. 490 ; Michael v. Holland (1942), 111 Ind. App. 34, 39, 40 , 40 N.E.2d 362 ." (Pages 230, 231.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. “In our examination of the record we have failed to find any undisputed evidence which leads inescapably to the establishment of an ultimate fact not found by the court, but which, if found, would necessitate a different conclusion of law from those rendered by the court. In this connection it must be remembered that the trial court as the trier of the facts was the exclusive judge of the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the exclusive judge of what facts had been proven, the inferences to be drawn from the proven facts, and that this court upon appeal cannot substitute its judgment as to what facts were established by the evidence for that of the trial court. Any fact in issue which was not found by the trial court in its special findings of facts must be considered as not having been proved. Home Equipment Co. v. Gorham (1941), 218 Ind. 454, 459 , 33 N. E. 2d 99 ; Deming Hotel Co. v. Sisson (1940), 216 Ind. 587, 593 , 24 N. E. 2d 912 .” (Our emphasis)”
2 later decisions 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.