Roth v. Michalis’s Empirical Analysis
1888
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1980
1 federal appellate · 6 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 Cline v. Jones · Badgley v. Votrain
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The instrument, it will be observed, does not, as counsel assume, purport to convey an undivided.half of the property which he then owned; but, on the contrary, only that which he might leave at the time of his death, after the payment of all his just debts. What portion of the effects he then owned, if, indeed, any at all would be on hand at the time of his death, and thus brought within the terms of the grant, was at that time, as is manifest, a matter of pure conjecture. This being so, it is clear that no present estate or interest in the property thus owned by him could have passed by this deed, and it therefore follows as a legal sequence that the instrument in question, considered as a conveyance, was and is void. This conclusion rests upon the fundamental principle tiiat a deed takes effect upon its delivery, if at all.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McKinnon v. McKinnon““It is unquestionably true that, where one for a valuable consideration attempts to make a conveyance of property to another, and by some casualty or inadvertence the instrument is defective and inoperative as a conveyance, a court of equity will, in a proper case, treat the instrument as a declaration of trust, or as a contract for a. conveyance, as the circumstances may require. But this doctrine has no application to a case like the present, where an essential element of the trust is wanting. An existing property right in or to some distinct subject-matter is essential to the existence of every trust; and any instrument, however perfect otherwise, which fails to disclose this, cannot properly be established as a declaration of trust.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McKinnon v. McKinnon
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.