Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 F.2d 194 - Murray v. Gadsden

Murray v. Gadsden’s Empirical Analysis

197 F.2d 194 · 1952

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
13
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 9 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Duggan v. Keto (1989), United States v. Lennox Metal Manufacturing Co. (1955)

34 federal appellate · 9 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 13 states

43019521960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Peugh v. Davis · Milholland v. Whalen · Whalen v. Milholland · Harrington v. Emmerman

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

  1. “a joint tenancy is not established unless it is the result of a gift or a trust as a condition precedent.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““This is a salutary exception to the parol evidence rule, because a court of equity should not permit the rule to defeat the admitted, or clearly proved, intention of the parties. It should be remembered too that a writing which is called a contract is merely a memorial of the parties’ agreement. It is simply evidence of the agreement and, if it be clear that it does not accurately reflect what the parties had agreed upon, monstrous injustice would be done by forcing upon them a contract which they had not actually made. * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]here a party opens a joint account for himself and another without consideration, the account is presumed opened for the convenience of that party.”
    2 later decisions 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.