Holt v. Bayles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where such intention [joint tenancy] is clearly expressed in a written contract executed by the parties, which remained unaltered, and there is no fraud, undue influence, mistake, or other infirmity alleged, the question of intention ceases to be an issue and the courts are bound by the agreement.” (Italics added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Navarre · Neill v. Royce

2. ““assign any part of the whole.” We shall first deal with these agreements as if they contained only the clause providing that the parties hold as “joint tenants with right of survivorship” regardless of the negative phrase reading “and not as tenants in common” which phrase we think neither adds nor detracts from the legal import of the first above quoted clause but simply lends emphasis to it. We shall later deal with the clauses in the agreements which provide for either having the right to withdraw all or any part of the account or equvalent expressions. The trial court concluded that the evidence demonstrated clearly and convincingly that the parties did not intend that any present interest in the joint chose in action (indebtedness of the bank) should vest in the plaintiff. Judge Dunford who tried the case has given us in a very helpful memorandum of decision, a clear picture of the processes of his mind in the considering and weighing of the evidence by which he concludes that the proof is clear and convincing “against the presumption that full joint tenancy was intended.” (Emphasis added.) The trial judge in analyzing the evidence respecting this matter of whether the presumption of a present gift has been overcome by clear and convincing proof says in this memorandum of decision: “The defendant testified in effect that it was their intention merely to avoid probate and that they did not intend to pass a present right to any of the funds. The plaintiff directly contr”

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

3. ““It is well established that a bank account may be so fixed that two persons shall be joint owners thereof during their mutual lives, and the survivor take the whole on the death of the other. In creating a joint bank account with right of survivorship, it is a matter of no importance that the particular terms ‘joint ownership’ and ‘joint account’ are not used; the controlling question is whether the person opening the account intentionally and intelligently .created a condition embracing the essential elements of joint ownership and survivorship. No particular formula is required, and courts will be controlled by the substance of the transaction rather than by the name given it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. O'Brien v. Biegger