Bishop v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Roberson v. Robinson (1989), Seaman v. Seaman (1968)
145 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 Lord v. New York Life Insurance Co. · Williams v. Williams · International Harvester Company v. Stedman · Brown v. Fore · Cox v. Windham
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the evidence of respondent’s acts and declarations does not support a finding of gift because there is nothing to show delivery of possession and an absolute parting with interest in the subject matter. While the authorities are agreed that actual or constructive delivery to the intended donee is ordinarily essential to an effective gift inter vivos, they disagree as to whether the trier of fact may find a delivery when there is no proof of it other than subsequent declarations of the donor. See Annotation 124 A.L.R. 1391 . Texas is one of the jurisdictions holding that statements by the donor indicating that he had given the chattel to the donee are sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether there was a delivery. Lord v. New York Life Ins. Co., 95 Tex. 216 , 66 S.W. 290 , 56 L.R.A. 596 , 93 Am.St.Rep. 827 . See also Brown v. Fore, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 114 , 63 A.L.R. 435 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he rules as to delivery are relaxed somewhat where the donor and donee are members of a family living together in the same house. In determining whether there has been a delivery from a husband to his wife, the relation of the parties as well as the nature and situation of the subject matter must be considered. Respondent told petitioner he was giving her the Cadillac, and at the same time delivered the vehicle into her possession. This is enough to support a finding that the automobile was given to her. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“I am giving you the car. I want you to have this Cadillac. I am keeping it in my name because I am making the payments on it, and it should be in my name for this reason.”
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.