Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 NY2D 38 - Markwica v. Davis

Markwica v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2016

13 state decisions

601984199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “Defendant, having furnished no consideration for the receipt of the proceeds of the life insurance policy, has received a gratuitous benefit and would be unjustly enriched in the eyes of the law were she to retain .those proceeds against.the claims of the children for breach by their father of his agreement to continue them as beneficiaries of the policy. That the children might also have a breach of contract claim against their father’s estate is of no moment so far as the liability of defendant to the children is concerned!.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where as an incident of a separation agreement a decedent husband has agreed to continue his children as beneficiaries of a policy of insurance on his life, a constructive trust for their benefit will be impressed on the proceeds of such insurance in the hands of the decedent’s second wife to whom they had been paid under a change of beneficiary designation.””
    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.