Harrington v. Emmerman’s Empirical Analysis
186 F.2d 757 · 1950
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Murray v. Gadsden (1952), O'Hair v. O'Hair (1973)
38 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 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 Meinhard v. Salmon · Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co. · Doing v. Riley · Matthew v. Moncrief
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““5. The deceased, Emma G. Murray, indicated by her act in signing the above accounts, with the balance at death of either to the survivor, that Vellmar G. Gadsden, if she survived Emma G. Murray, would receive the balance in said account. The deceased further stated to Vellmar G. Gadsden, in the presence of other sisters, that after her death, she desired Vellmar G. Gadsden to divide the proceeds equally with two other sisters of the deceased. This statement was made at the time of the opening of the first of the above joint accounts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“when a depositor creates a joint account for [herself] and another, without consideration, it is presumed to have been done for the convenience of the depositor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Thus, in cases of joint deposit, while the contract of deposit is conclusive as between the parties and the bank, yet it may be shown that, for example, the execution of the contract of joint deposit was procured to be made by the depositor by the exercise of undue influence upon him, (case cited), or that it was intended as a matter of convenience, (case cited), or that it was void if intended by the depositor to hinder, defraud or delay his creditors, (case cited), or that the gift of the interest in the joint account was one upon a trust, (case cited) ; in brief, that the result of a present gift was not intended.” [ 88 U.S.App.D.C. 23 , 186 F.2d 762 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Gadsden
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.