Hansen v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant further contends that inasmuch as she retained possession of the recorded deed, there was no delivery. We stated in Fooshee v. Kasenberg, [ 152 Kan. 100, 103 , 102 P.2d 995 (1940)]: ‘It is well settled that the recording of a deed constitutes delivery to the grantee. (Balin v. Osoba, 76 Kan. 234 , 91 Pac. 57 ; Carver v. Main, 146 Kan. 251, 257 , 69 P.2d 681 ). Where the deed is intentionally recorded by the grantor manual delivery of the deed thereafter is not necessary to make it effectual. (Turner v. Close, 125 Kan. 485 , 264 Pac. 1047 .) In the absence of express disclaimer acceptance by the grantee is presumed. (Wuester v Folin, 60 Kan. 334 , 56 Pac. 490 ; Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan. 1 , 136 Pac. 953 .)' “It seems to be a well-settled rule of law in this state that the recording of a deed constitutes delivery to the grantee, and where the deed is intentionally recorded by the grantor, the manual delivery of the deed thereafter is not necessary to make it effectual. In the absence of express disclaimer, acceptance by the grantee is presumed. [Citations omitted.]” Hansen v. Walker, 175 Kan. 121, 124 , 259 P.2d 242 (1953).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Kan. App. 2d 172 - Giefer v. Swenton

2. “[W]here a transfer of property is made without consideration, the inference is that a gift was intended, not that the grantee was to hold the property for the benefit of the grantor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Heiman v. Parrish