Thompson v. Botts’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling (2006), Wright v. Bloom (1994)
1 federal appellate · 85 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 Vetter v. Hampton · In Re Estate of Hutchison · Beaver v. Redmond · 152 Ohio St. 430 - Union Properties, Inc. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · Steinhauser v. Repko
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] joint and survivorship account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘This writer is cognizant that R.C. 1107.08 and 1151.19 make provision for joint and survivorship accounts. My personal observation is that these accounts are frequently litigated. It is thus apparent that there exists an abysmal flaw in their creation. All too frequently, the parties entering into this type of contractual agreement with banks or savings and loan institutions are not really apprised of all the ramifications that exist when such a contract is consummated. Often depositors are advised that these accounts are the best way to “avoid probate.” Seldom, if ever, are the clerks in banks and savings and loan institutions attorneys or well versed in the legal aspects of this contract.’ ” In re Estate of Thompson (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 433, 437 , 20 O.O.3d 371, 374 , 423 N.E.2d 90, 94 , quoting Justice Locher’s concurrence in Vetter v. Hampton (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 227, 233-234 , 8 O.O.3d 198, 202 , 375 N.E.2d 804, 808 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The survivorship rights under a joint and survivorship account of the co-party or co-parties to the sums remaining on deposit at the death of the depositor may not be defeated by extrinsic evidence that the decedent did not intend to create in such surviving party or parties a present interest in the account during the decedent's lifetime. {¶17}”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dunlap v. Bank One · In re McCauley
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.