Marshall v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. ““The grandchildren contend that they transmitted these funds to their grandmother to give her security and to ensure that their grandmother could meet any health care needs that might arise. The grandchildren further contend that they were assured that these funds would be returned to them upon their grandmother’s death, through her estate. It would appear that any claim for these funds would be against the estate of Nina C. Whiddon, deceased, not against Whiddon. “Stated another way, there may well be evidence to support the conclusion that their grandmother owed the grandchildren the funds transmitted to her. However, this clearly is the debt of the grandmother’s estate and not a debt of Whiddon, the recipient of the funds contained in the joint savings account. For the reasons stated below, we have determined that the joint savings account was a joint account with right of survivorship. Consequently, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment which ordered Whiddon to repay the funds to the grandchildren, and we remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. “In her cross-appeal [Donna W.] Kim-brough [the daughter of Nina C. Whiddon and the mother of James Kimbrough, Jr. and Laura Kimbrough Loomis] contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it determined that the joint savings account [which contained the $75,-000 ‘loaned’ to Nina C. Whiddon prior to her death] between Whiddon and their mother was a survivorsh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 699 So. 2d 201 - Kimbrough v. Estate of Whiddon

2. ““The law is clear. If an instrument is unambiguous and complete on its face, then unless it is stated in the instrument that the joint tenancy is with right of survivorship or other words are used therein to show such an intention, the predeceasing joint tenant’s interest does not survive to the other joint tenant but descends and vests as if that interest had been severed and ascertained.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harvey v. Bolton