Weeks v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The benefits and dangers, the advantages and disadvantages of joint tenancies by husband and wife have been for many years the subject of wide discussion among lawyers, banks, trust companies and others, and in later years with a special view to federal tax liabilities. A choice of the tenancy must be made, and we may assume that it will sometimes be made inadvisedly or that later developments may indicate that the choice, seemingly advantageous at the time, has resulted in loss or hardship." Here the respondent by gift created a joint tenancy for the purpose of gaining certain advantages which such tenancy provided. The fact that respondent had in mind the advantages to be gained does not weigh against the creation of such a tenancy, but in its favor. The fact that he did not have in mind the disadvantages of joint tenancy is unfortunate but cannot act to destroy the tenancy or avoid the gift. ( 302 P.2d at 752-753 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 298 So. 2d 704 - Miller v. Miller · 568 So. 2d 255 - Powers v. Powers

2. “plaintiff contends that by depositing the money in the joint account defendant made a valid, completed gift to the plaintiff.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. NATKO (HELEN) VS. STATE · Natko v. State

3. ““In remanding this case, a further observation is necessary. We have statutory provisions to guide the court in making disposition of community property of the parties. No such disposition may be made by us in the first instance. Our holding that the securities are the joint property of the parties may well disturb the factual situation upon which the trial court relied in making its final disposition of the property of the parties. On remand, therefore, the trial court must be left at liberty to make a final order for such disposition, after such hearing and upon such notice to the parties as may appear proper.” See Weeks v. Weeks, 72 Nev. 268 , 302 P.2d 750 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weeks v. Weeks