Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 Ohio App. 2d 287 - Webb v. Webb

18 Ohio App. 2d 287 - Webb v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2004

9 state decisions

6019691970198019902000decided

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 114 Ohio St. 241 - Cleveland Trust Co. v. Scobie · Beaver v. Redmond · 152 Ohio St. 430 - Union Properties, Inc. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · 132 Ohio St. 377 - Sage v. Flueck · 137 Ohio St. 542 - Nichols v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

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

  1. ““From the date of the guardianship, Ella Wycoff ceased to have any authority over the account. She could make neither withdrawals nor deposits. Obviously, also, the guardian could not become a joint owner of the account with Nickel. The guardian was entitled to whatever interest Ella Wycoff possessed in the account, but he could not, because he was her guardian, continue the joint arrangement. * * * The relationship of the original parties had been broken. The effect of the appointment of the guardian was to terminate the agreement * * * principle [s] of equity require * * * an equal division of the account between the parties involved * * * [to the extent of their contributions].””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Assuming that under circumstances and the applicable law, the surviving joint depositor would have been entitled to the balance of the account in the absence of any intervening ineompetency of either joint depositor, it has been held or recognized that the fact that one joint depositor becomes incompetent does not destroy his survivorship rights, or those of the other depositors as the case may be.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.