Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 Okla. 570 - Crews v. Garber

Crews v. Garber’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
June 1993
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 1993 · most notably Seitz v. Jones (1961), Gay v. Akin (1988)

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

110194119501960197019801990decided

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 Briggs v. Spaulding · Bowerman v. Hamner · Savings Bank of Louisville's Assignee v. Caperton · Johnson v. Harris · Deaderick v. Bank

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

  1. ““But it is contended by Garber that the action cannot be maintained by the owner of the deposit, but only by the bank or its receiver. We do not believe the authorities relied on by Garber support this contention. Here we have to do with an escrow account. The title to the money and securities held in the account remained in the owners of the account — the plaintiffs here. It did not vest in the bank. The bank was merely the bailee. 7 Am.Jur. pp. 292, 297, 298. It follows that when the money and securities were embezzled, the property of the plaintiffs, not that of the bank, was embezzled. In such a case the action for conversion of the securities should be brought in the name of the plaintiff, the real party in interest, the one entitled to the proceeds of the judgment. See section 142, O.S.1931, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 221; Johnson v. Harris, 187 Okl. 239 , 102 P.2d 940 .””
    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.