32 Cal. App. 369 - Sullivan v. Shea’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1971
5 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
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 Beaver v. . Beaver · Whalen v. Milholland · Denigan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society · Knight v. Tripp · Pullen v. Placer Country Bank
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The elements essential to constitute a valid gift are an intention to give, and the delivery, either actual or symbolical, of the thing intended to be given. Neither alone is sufficient. The rule is very clearly set forth in the case of Jones v. Falls, 101 Mo. App. 536 [ 73 S. W. 903 ], where it is said: ‘To constitute a valid gift inter vivos there must be an intention to give and a delivery to the donee, or to someone for him, of the property given. An intention of the donor to give is not alone sufficient. The intention must be executed by a complete and unconditional delivery. Neither will a delivery be sufficient unless made with the intention to give. ’ (See, also, Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421 [ 15 Am. St. Rep. 531 , 6 L. R. A. 403, 22 N. E. 940 ]; Knight v. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674, 678 [ 54 Pac. 267 ]; Pullen v. Placer County Bank, 138 Cal. 169, 170 [ 94 Am. St. Rep. 19 , 66 Pac. 740 , 71 Pac. 83 ].) . . . “The burden of proving a gift is upon the donee. (Lehr v. Jones, 74 App. Div. 54 [ 77 N. Y. Supp. 213 ]; Thomas v. Tilley, 147 Ala. 189 [41 So. 854]; Brady v. O’Rourke, 89 App. Div. 400 [ 85 N. Y. Supp. 907 ].) “It is also said to be the rule that where a claim of gift is asserted after the death of a donor, every element necessary to constitute a gift must be sustained by explicit and convincing evidence.” (See, also, Estate of Hall, 154 Cal. 527 [ 98 Pac. 269 ]; Zeller v. Jordan, 105 Cal. 143 [ 38 Pac. 640 ]; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 81 Cal. App. 546 ”
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.