Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 Md. 436 - Pomerantz v. Pomerantz

Pomerantz v. Pomerantz’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

2 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Berman v. Leckner (1949), Dorsey v. Dorsey (1985)

2 district · 25 state decisions

7019411950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Whalen v. Milholland · Brewer v. Bowersox · Taylor v. Henry · Pope v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Brooks v. Mitchell

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

  1. ““It has been decided frequently by this court that to make a gift inter vivos perfect and complete there must be an actual transfer of all right and dominion over it by the donor and acceptance by the donee, or by some competent person for him, and that the transfer of the gift should go into effect at once and completely. ... The law will not recognize a gift where there is reserved to the donor, either expressly or as a result of circumstances, a power of revocation or dominion over the subject of the gift. . . . The delivery must be actual or constructive, in either case it must divest the donor completely of any dominion or control over it and transfer such dominion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The appellant’s own testimony that the gift was to be hers when she was twenty-one years of age is not evidence of a perfected gift at the time the deposits were made. The fact that the father undid what he had previously done is direct evidence of locus poenitentiae. The appellee had not done everything necessary to perfect and complete the gift at the time of appellant’s majority when appellant claims it became her absolute property.”
    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.