Goralsky v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 110 Ohio App. 3d 817 - Needham v. the Provident Bank (1996), 125 Ohio App. 3d 257 - First Bank of Marietta v. Mascrete (1998)
35 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 129 Ohio St. 323 - Ulmer v. Fulton, Supt. · 149 Ohio St. 133 - Schofield v. Cleveland Trust Co. · 122 Ohio St. 1 - Fourth & Central Trust Co. v. Rowe · 91 Ohio App. 200 - Douglas v. Hubbard · 57 Ohio App. 168 - Gall v. Central Trust Co.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Wjhere the depositor is a judgment debtor and the bank is a garnishee, the property being garnished is, strictly speaking, not the funds themselves, but the debtor’s contractual right to receive them.” Id. at 198 , 571 N.E.2d at 722 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[U]nder R.C. 2716.21(B), a garnishee bank is not required to disclose the existence of a trust account established for the benefit of the judgment debtor where the debtor is not a depositor or otherwise able to demand payment of the sum deposited.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“beneficiary's interest-sometimes called the 'equitable title'-consists [only] of a right to the beneficial enjoyment of the corpus [that is] enforceable against the trustee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weinberg v. Weinberg
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.