152 Ind. App. 365 - Hunter v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Scott v. Bodor, Inc. (1991), Melloh v. Gladis (1974)
7 federal appellate · 54 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 Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co. · Ransdel v. Moore · Johnson v. Clark · Westphal v. Heckman · Shapiro v. Rubens
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although the existence of a confidential relationship depends upon the facts of each case, it can be generally stated that a confidential relationship exists whenever confidence is reposed by one party in another with resulting superiority and influence exercised by the other. Not only must there be confidence by one party in the other, the party reposing the confidence must also be in a position of inequality, dependence, weakness, or lack of knowledge. Furthermore, it must be shown that the dominant party wrongfully abused the confidence by improperly influencing the weaker so as to obtain an unconscionable advantage.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“There are certain legal and domestic relations in respect to which the law raises a presumption of trust and confidence on one side and a corresponding influence on the other. The relations of attorney and client, principal and agent, husband and wife, and parent and child belong to this class and there may be others. Where such a relation exists between two persons and the one occupying the superior position has dealt with the other in such a way as to sustain a substantial advantage, the law will presume that improper influence was exerted and that the transaction is fraudulent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“fraud or constructive fraud arising out of a confidential or fidu-ciliary relationship where one party dominates a weaker party who reposes confidence in that dominant party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.