Wootten v. Wootten’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.2d 147 · 1945
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Lawrence v. Cohn (2003), Renz v. Beeman (1978)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 Meinhard v. Salmon · Oliver v. Oliver · Ball v. Hopkins · Stewart v. Harris · Rishel v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Many forms of conduct regarded as permissible for those acting at arm’s length are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. The standards of conduct for a trustee rise far above the ordinary morals of the market place. -Not honesty alone, but a punctilio of honor the most sensitive is the standard of behavior required of a trustee. Pie must completely efface self-interest. His loyalty and devotion to his trust must be unstinted. Its well-being must always be his first consideration. These principles are inveterate and unbending. “A trastee must not compete with his beneficiary in the acquisition of property. The principle is not limited to cases where the fiduciary acquired property entrusted to him, nor to cases where the fiduciary competes with the beneficiary in the purchase of property which the trustee has undertaken to purchase for the beneficiary. Even though the interest purchased by the fiduciary for himself is not property of the beneficiary entrusted to the fiduciary, nor property which the fiduciary has undertaken to purchase for the beneficiary, the principle applies if the property purchased by the fiduciary himself is so connected with the trust property or the scope of his duties as fiduciary, that it is improper for him to purchase it for himself. “It was to the advantage of John B. Wootten to secure a majority interest in the stock of the corporation, which gave him control. It was also to the disadvantage of the widow and children because it placed them”
2 later decisions 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.