Semasek v. Semasek’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (2007), Sutliff v. Sutliff (1988)
68 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 Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. Grant County · 331 Pa. Super. 1 - Semasek v. Semasek · Sgarlat Estate v. Commonwealth · Glider v. Commonwealth · F. W. Woolworth Co. Tax Assessment Case
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A gift may be given to anyone. The law is cold in its definition, it does not ask a reason for the giving, only an intention, delivery and acceptance of the thing are required---- The question ought not to be what is the subject or the purpose of the gift, but rather whether was it intended as a gift, delivered and accepted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[o]ur law requires only donative intent, delivery and acceptance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.