Frank v. Eeles’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 53 So. 2d 312 - Pyle v. Pyle (1951), Bethea v. Langford (1949)
4 federal appellate · 26 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 Semple v. Semple · Brown v. Brown · Skahen v. Irving
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, for any reason, the legal title to property is in one person under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for him to have the beneficial interest, equity will imply a trust in favor of the person entitled to the beneficial interest. It must appear from the entire transaction that there is an obligation on the part of the holder of the legal title to hold it for the benefit of someone else.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . It is well settled that where the purchase-money of land is paid by one person, and the title is taken in the name of another, the party taking the title is presumed to hold it in trust for him who pays the purchase price. Frank v. Eeles, 152 Fla. 869 , 13 So.2d 216 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nininger v. Peirez“founded on the presumed intention of the parties that the one furnishing the money should have the beneficial interest, while the other held the title for convenience or for a collateral purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Key v. Trattmann
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.