Cook v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1990
5 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 37 Tenn. App. 323 - Seaton v. Dye · 38 Tenn. App. 238 - Greene v. Greene · 28 Tenn. App. 473 - Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bryant
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We remand this case to the Chancery Court in Union City, for further hearing under the following guidelines: a. The entire record in this cause will be deemed and treated as a part of the record on remand, without the necessity for recalling any witness, rereading any deposition, or re-introducing any document. b. Plaintiff will have the right to recall any witness for further examination. c. Defendant will have the right to recall any witness for further cross-examination. d. Either party will have the right to call any additional witness. The Chancellor shall insure a full investigation into this controversy to the end that the precise nature and extent of the trust be developed and declared. It being evident that there is hostility between Gayle Franklin Cook, the appointed (but not qualified) guardian, and Virginia L. Cook, mother and natural guardian, and it being further evident that there is a possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of Gayle Franklin Cook, this Court directs that the Court appoint a disinterested person to serve as guardian pendente lite or may cause the insurance proceeds to be paid into the Registry of the Court, to be managed and invested, pendente lite, under the direction and supervision of the Court. Upon the determination of the precise terms of the trust, the Court will appoint a permanent guardian, not handicapped by any conflict, hostility or incompatibility- As modified and amplified, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirme”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The proceeds of an insurance policy in which a beneficiary is named are not subject to an oral gift or assignment and do not pass by will so as to defeat the rights of the named beneficiary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stoker v. Compton
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.