Jackson v. Steinberg’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Favorite v. Miller (1978), Schley v. Couch (1955)
2 federal appellate · 17 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 Foulke v. New York Consolidated Railroad · Kuykendall v. Fisher · Silcott v. Louisville Trust Co. · Bowen v. Sullivan · Weeks v. Hackett
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Lost property” is property which the owner has involuntarily parted with through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence, that is, property which the owner has unwittingly suffered to pass out of his possession, and of whose whereabouts he has no knowledge. Property is deemed lost when it is unintentionally separated from the dominion of its owner. Popularly, property is lost when the owner does not know, and cannot ascertain, where it is, the essential test of lost property is whether the owner parted with the possession of the property intentionally, casually or involuntarily; only in the latter contingency may it be lost property. Property is not “lost” unless the owner parts with it involuntarily and unintentionally, and does not, at any time thereafter, know where to find it. A loss is always involuntary; there can be no intent to part with the ownership of lost property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Terry v. Lock“"that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person, and with the intention of not reclaiming any future rights therein."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“` ... the possession of the servant ... [is] the possession of the [employer] and that, therefore, the element is wanting which would give the title to the servant as against the master ...'”
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.