Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 WASH 256 - Matson v. Johnson

Matson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
January 1988
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 1988 · most notably Showalter v. Spangle (1916), Maxwell v. Harper (1909)

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

100190819101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Towner v. Rodegeb · Edson v. Knox · Atwood v. Atwood · Bloomingdale v. Weil · Carson v. Thompson

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

  1. ““ ‘Actual manual delivery and change of possession are not required in order to constitute an effectual delivery. But whether there has been a valid delivery or not must be decided by determining what was the intention of the grantor, and by regarding the particular circumstances of the case. Where a father had indicated in various ways that certain property should be bestowed at his death upon his infant son, and for that purpose had executed a deed, of which he, however, retained the possession, effect was given to his intention, despite the fact that there had been no manual delivery of the deed. ’ ’ ’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““What was lacking in the Atwood case, viz., the intention to consummate the transaction so as to fully vest the title in the grantee, was, in our opinion, clearly and unequivocally shown in this case. The will and deed were executed at the same time and as a part of the same transaction. The real property was omitted from the will, no doubt advisedly, and all the surrounding circumstances show conclusively that the grantor intended to convey his real property to these minors, that the deed was executed for that purpose; and in our opinion the mere absence of an acknowledgment is not sufficient to defeat his expressed intentions.””
    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.