Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 U.S. 663 - Ralston v. Turpin

Ralston v. Turpin’s Empirical Analysis

129 U.S. 663 · 1889

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2001 · most notably Towson v. Moore (1899), Doyle v. Rody (1942)

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 16 states

1401889189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Allore v. Jewell · Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy · Conley v. Nailor

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

  1. ““The agent is bound to act with absolute good faith toward the principal in respect to every matter entrusted to his care and management. In accepting a gift from his principal he is under an obligation to withhold no information in his possession respecting the subject of the gift, or the condition of the estate in his hands, which good faith requires to be disclosed, or that may reasonably influence the judgment of the principal in making the gift. All transactions between them whereby the agent derives advantages beyond legitimate compensation for his services will be closely examined by courts of equity, and set aside if there be any ground to suppose that he has abused the confidence reposed in him. * * * “We do not intend to qualify or weaken, in any degree, these salutary doctrines. Their recognition, however, does not determine the present case, unless it be held that a principal cannot, under any circumstances whatever, make a valid gift to his agent of property committed to the latter’s care or management. No such doctrine has ever been established, nor could it be, without impairing the natural right of an owner to make such disposition of his property as he may think Avould best subserve his interest and comfort or gratify his feelings.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “although their execution may have been induced, not unnaturally, by feelings of friendship for, and gratitude to, the defendant Turpin, the grantor acted, upon his own independent, deliberate judgment, with full knowledge of the nature and effect of the deeds. It was for the donor, who had .sufficient capacity to take a survey of his estate, and to dispose of it according to an intelligent, fixed purpose of his own, regardless of the wishes of others, to determine how far such feelings should control him when selecting the objects of his bounty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That the grantor in a deed was in a declining state of health . . . when he executed the deed does not necessarily imply an absence of sufficient capacity to dispose of property by gift or otherwise.””
    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.