Young v. . Young’s Empirical Analysis
1880
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1989 · most notably Beaver v. . Beaver (1889), Sexton v. Kessler & Co. (1912)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 179 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To establish a valid gift, a delivery of the subject of the gift to the donee, or to some person for him, so as to divest the possession and title of the donor, must be shown.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The transaction Is sought to be sustained in two aspects: First, as an actual executed gift; and, secondly, as a declaration of trust. These positions are antagonistic to each other, for, If a trust was created, the possession of the bonds and the legal title thereto remained in the trustee. In that case there was no delivery to the donee, and consequently no valid executed gift, while, if there was a valid gift, the possession and legal title must have been transferred to the donee, and no trust was created. As each of these theories thus necessarily excludes the other, they must be separately considered.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schwind v. Ibert““In speaking of these cases in Richards v. Delbridge, L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 11, Sir George Jessel, M. R., says: “ ‘If the decisions of Lord Romilly [in Morgan v. Malleson] and of Vice Chancellor Wood [in Richardson v. Richardson] were right, there never could be a case where an expression of a present gift would not amount to an effectual declaration of trust.’ “And it may be added that there never could be a case where an intended gift, defective for want of delivery, could not, if expressed in writing, be sustained as a declaration of trust. Both of the cases cited are now placed among overruled cases. ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clay v. Layton
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.