Slay v. Burnett Trust’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 235 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 261 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably S.V. v. R.V. (1996), Tooke v. City of Mexia (2006)
6 federal appellate · 235 state decisions
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 United States v. Carter · Friederichsen v. Renard · Alexander Magruder v. Samuel a Drury · Jackson v. Smith · Kerrison Assignee v. Stewart et al.
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 261 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is a well-settled rule that a trustee can make no profit out of his trust. The rule in such cases springs from his duty to protect the interests of the estate, and not to permit his personal interest to in any wise conflict with his duty in that respect. The intention is to provide against any possible selfish interest exercising an influence which .can interfere with the faithful discharge of the duty which is owing in a fiduciary capacity.’ Magruder v. Drury, 235 U.S. 106 , 35 S. Ct. 77,82 , 59 L.Ed. 151,156 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . the established rule is that while a beneficiary’s consent to an act of his trustee which would constitute a violation of the duty of loyalty precludes him from holding the trustee liable for the consequences of the act, the beneficiary is not precluded from holding the trustee unless it is made to appear that when he gave his consent the beneficiary had full knowledge of all the material facts which the trustee knew. In re Trusteeship of Stone, 138 Ohio St. 293 , 34 N.E.2d 755 , 134 A.L.R. 1306 ; Scott’s The Law of Trusts, Vol. 2, pp. 1149-1153, Sec. 216; Restatement of the Law of Trusts, Vol. 1, pp. 609-619, Sec. 216.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The earlier equity rule was that the beneficiary was always a necessary party, but the present position of the courts is that the trustee may represent the cestui que trust in all actions relating to the trust, if rights of the cestui que trust as against the trustee, or the rights of the cestuis que trust between themselves, are not brought into question. In other words, in all cases where there is no conflict of interest between cestui que trust and trustee, or between the several cestuis que trust, the trustee may sue and be sued without joining the cestuis que trust. * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Mason
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.