Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 MISS 387 - Thames v. Holcomb

Thames v. Holcomb’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2017

16 state decisions

401957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Rimmer v. Austin · Cooper v. Cooper · Sullivan v. Nobles · Board of Trustees v. Odom · Mitchell v. Bank of Indianola

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

  1. “from the time the act or acts were committed by which the actor becomes chargeable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Hereafter all declarations or creations of trusts or confidence of or in any land shall be made and manifested by writing, signed by the party who declares or creates such trust, or by his last will, in writing, or else they shall be utterly void; and every writing declaring or creating a trust shall be acknowledged or proved as other writings, and shall be lodged with the clerk of the chancery court of the proper county to be recorded, and shall only take effect from the time it is so lodged for record; * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The third instrument, or paper writing, executed by Vernard Droke and Dixie Droke, styled "Revocable Trust Agreement-Droke Family Trust," was never lodged with the Clerk of the Chancery Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi to be recorded as required by Section 91-9-1, Mississippi Code, Annotated. The so-called Trust instrument contained no acknowledgment of delivery, and, hence, was not entitled to record, from which it inevitably follows that the attempted trust never had any effect.”
    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.