Wright v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling (2006), Lewis v. Steinreich (1995)
53 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 Thompson v. Botts · 114 Ohio St. 241 - Cleveland Trust Co. v. Scobie · Vetter v. Hampton · 167 Ind. App. 651 - Robison v. Fickle, Extr. · Agrelius v. Mohesky
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he opening of a joint and survivorship account in the absence of fraud, duress, undue influence or lack of capacity on the part of the decedent is conclusive evidence of his or her intention to transfer to the surviving party or parties a survivorship interest in the balance remaining in the account at his or her death.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“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}”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““[i]t would seem that when a depositor opens a joint and survivorship account and executes signature cards which recite that the account is to be paid to either during the depositors’ joint lives and to the surviv- or upon the death of either, a rebuttable presumption of an intent to make a gift of a joint interest should arise. After the depositor’s death only evidence of fraud, undue influence or lack of capacity should be admissible to rebut the presumption. It serves no useful social purpose to encourage litigation concerning the disposition of the balance of the joint account upon the death of the depositor, when in most instances he [or she] intended, in his [or her] unlearned manner, to make a testamentary disposition of his [or her] property. If the joint account is sound, as a means of transferring property, it should be uniformly administered.” Kepner, 41 Cal.L.Rev. at 621.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.