Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 A2D 560 - Lindh v. Surman

Lindh v. Surman’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2020

5 state decisions

201997200020102020decided

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 Heiman v. Parrish · Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger · 223 N.J. Super. 344 - Aronow v. Silver · Stanger v. Epler · Semenza v. Alfano

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

  1. “(b) Conditional gifts. The gift may be conditional upon the continuance or creation of a relation, and if conditional the donor is entitled to its return if the relation terminates or is hot entered into. The condition may be stated in specific words' or it may be inferred from the circumstances. Likewise, as in the case of engagement and wedding gifts, justice may require th'e‘ creation of a condition although the donor had no such condition in mind.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.