Candler v. Donaldson’s Empirical Analysis
272 F.2d 374 · 1959
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howell (2000), 110 Wash. 2d 520 - Standard Insurance Co. v. Schwalbe (1988)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 McDonald v. McDonald · 55 Cal. App. 344 - Shoudy v. Shoudy · 9 Cal. App. 2d 528 - Mutual Life Insurance of New York v. Franck · Thomson v. Thomson · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Equity considers that as done which ought to be done.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“hilt is true that neither the order nor the injunction expressly directed the insured not to change the beneficiary. But the order directed the insured to continue in force ‘all life insurance policies ... during the pendency of this suit and until a final adjudication of this cause shall be made’ and restrained the insured from ‘assigning ... or otherwise disposing of the property hereinbefore mentioned, as well as any other property he may own, possess or have interest in until a final adjudication of the interests of these parties in said property may properly be made by this Honorable Court.’ This was a temporary order preliminary to a later final order adjudicating the property rights of the parties ... Giving due consideration to the other provisions of the order, we think it was the purpose of the order to preserve the status quo between the parties until the final adjudication of property rights between the parties could be made. Under the circumstances, the word ‘dispose’ is broad enough to cover any material change by the husband in his existing property rights until a final adjudication of the cause. Id. at 377 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“selling, assigning, encumbering, hypothecating, or otherwise disposing of the property herein before mentioned, as well as any other property he may own, possess, or have interest in until a final adjudication of the interests of these parties in said property may properly be made by this Honorable Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lonergan v. Strom
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.