Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 Neb. 801 - Newman v. Thomas

Newman v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on American Family Mutual Insurance v. Hadley · Sydow v. City of Grand Island · Capitol City Telephone, Inc. v. Nebraska Department of Revenue · Eastroads, Inc. v. City of Omaha · Fontenelle Equip. v. PATTLEN ENTERPRISES

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

  1. “Rights at death under § 14-6212 are determined by the type of account at the death of a party. The type of account may be altered by written notice given by a party to a financial institution to change the type of account or to stop or vary payment under the terms of the account. The notice shall be signed by a party and received by the financial institution during the party's lifetime.[ [7] ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “be to render the statute meaningless. It would neither create new rights nor limit existing ones. Any other method for modifying a contract would remain available to alter the form of an account. A signed, written notice would simply be a non-binding legislative suggestion. By contrast, to read § 30-2724 as setting out mandatory methods for altering the type of an account gives the statute a purpose consistent with the rest of Article 27. Article 27 is designed to provide simple, non-probate alternatives for the disposition of assets upon death of a party to a multi-party or POD account. Requiring signed, written notice to alter the type of account furthers this purpose by ensuring clear evidence of the account owner's intent, thus preventing fraud and adding certainty to non-probate transfers.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Newman v. Thomas, 264 Neb. 801 , 652 N.W.2d 565 (2002). Although”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re JK

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.