Cox v. Schnerr’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably In Re Estate of Cover (1922), 53 Cal. 2d 195 - Leeper v. Beltrami (1959)
2 federal appellate · 109 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. Judson · Mattingly v. Pennie · Murphy v. Crowley · Blanc v. Connor · Hart v. Church
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The presumption arising from the confidential relations 'of the parties to the purported conveyance might of itself, and in spite of the evidence offered by plaintiff, be sufficient to justify the court’s findings of fraud. There may have been in the manner of the witnesses, or the circumstances attending the giving of their testimony, that which justified the court in disregarding it. It is within the province of the trial court to determine what weight and credit shall be given to the testimony of any witness, and this court may not control the conclusion or finding of the superior court denying credence to the testimony unless it appears that there is nothing which at all impairs its accuracy. (Blanc v. Connor, 167 Cal. 719 -722 [ 141 Pac. 217 ] ; Davis v. Judson, 159 Cal. 121 -128 [ 113 Pac. 147 ].) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““To constitute delivery of a deed, it is not sufficient that there be a mere delivery of its possession, but this act must be accompanied with the intent that the deed shall become operative as such. (2 Boone on Real Property, sec. 295a; Black v. Sharkey, 104 Cal. 281 [ 37 Pac. 939 ]; Denis v. Velati, 96 Cal. 227 [ 31 Pac. 1 ] ; Harris v. Harris, 59 Cal. 622 .) Here both parties understood that the deed could have no effect until recorded; and there was therefore no intent that it should become immediately operative, or that it should ever become operative during the life of the grantor, or afterwards, unless the grantee should survive her. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hotaling v. Hotaling
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.