Christensen v. Christensen’s Empirical Analysis
14 F.2d 475 · 1926
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1957
3 federal appellate · 1 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 Hirsh v. . Auer · Coffey v. Exchange Bank · Edgell v. Felder
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An oral trust is alleged to have been created at the time of taking out the insurance. This was valid under general principles of law (Hirsh v. Auer, 146 N.Y. 13 , 40 N.E. 397 ), and there is nothing in the statute which forbids it in relation to the particular insurance here involved. [Emphasis supplied.] It amounted to a designation of the complainant as a contingent beneficiary * * *. The defendant Carlo Christensen had nothing differing much from a passive or dry trust in one-half of the insurance. His duty was but to receive and pay over the insurance moneys. It might not unreasonably be contended that such an arrangement made him a mere dummy, and vested in the complainant ab initio the legal title to the undivided half of the chose in action in which the latter has an interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.