27 Wis. 2d 204 - Gray v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. ““Although the form of the account is not conclusive, as we said in the cases, swpra, an account opened in joint names raises a rebuttable presumption that the creator of such an account intended the usual rights incident to jointly owned property.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Wis. 2d 409 - Estates of Beisbier · Wagner v. Wagner

2. ““By withdrawing the entire account, Mildred Gray severed the joint tenancy, but, in our opinion, she did not thereby deprive her husband of his 50 percent interest. Since the funds in this case can be traced, Mr. Gray is entitled to one half of the account as it existed at the time of the severance. Thus, Mr. Gray is entitled to one half of $35,141.08, or $17,570.54, plus interest earned on the latter figure while such fund remained with the credit union; from the date that such money was paid to the executor, Mr. Gray is entitled to interest at the legal rate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Wis. 2d 409 - Estates of Beisbier

3. “"Any deed, transfer or assignment of real or personal property to two or more grantees, including any deed in which a grantor is also a grantee, which, by the method of describing such grantees or by the language of the granting habendum clause therein evinces an intent to create a joint tenancy in grantees shall be held and construed to create such joint tenancy."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miles v. Hanten