Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.1d 715 - In re Mulligan

In re Mulligan’s Empirical Analysis

116 F. 715 · 1902

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 1986
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1986

6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

70190219101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Peters v. Bain · Litchfield v. Ballou · Matter of Cavin v. . Gleason · Little v. Chadwick · The People v. . the City Bank of Rochester

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

  1. ““The mere misapplication of trust funds does not create in favor of the defrauded beneficiary a claim upon the general estate of the defrauding trustee superior to that of his general creditors. * * * The burden of tracing the trust fund into the property claimed rests upon the beneficiary who claims it. He may be assisted in bearing this burden by the legal presumption above mentioned concerning the application of checks drawn against a bank account; but the burden of proof is upon him. The priority already referred to which has sometimes been given to the cestui in the application of the cash assets of a bank which has mingled the trust fund with its own funds, whether defensible or not, is limited to the ease of the cash assets of a bank, and is not extended to other kinds of defaulting trustees or to other assets of the bank.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It may be reasonable that a trustee should be deemed to draw his checks against that part of a mingled account which is his own. It is unreasonable that he should be deemed to draw his checks with the invariable intent to defraud [one trust beneficiary] rather than [the other].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.