Nickell v. Reser’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 1993
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 Davis v. Clark · Smith v. Griffith · Christy v. Central State Bank
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““, . . It is as well to treat him [the depositary] as just what he is, a third party to whom the principal parties to the contract have entrusted certain authority by the escrow agreement. . . (p. 835.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a broad sense, every depositary ■of an escrow is the agent of both par-lies. For the purpose of making delivery upon the performance of the ■conditions, he is no less the agent of the grantee than the agent of the grant- or. He is empowered to aid neither, being merely the conduit used in the transaction for convenience and safety. He may, therefore, be looked upon as a special agent of both parties, with powers limited only to those stipulated in the escrow agreement. Strictly, however, the depositary is not an agent at all, but rather the trustee of an express trust with duties to perform for each of the parties, which duties neither can forbid without the consent of the other. When the depositary knows the terms of the agreement so that he may understand his duties, he acts by virtue of his own powers, and not as the agent of anybody. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foreman v. Todd““ * * * the deposit of instruments in escrow cannot be made with one who is the agent of either of the parties to the instrument * * * for if the depository is the agent of the grantor, the instrument is retained by him; if the agent of the grantee, there is a delivery of the instrument. To the extent the term agent is applicable, it is a limited agency, with duties and powers limited to the terms of the escrow agreement. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foreman v. Todd
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.