Herd v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

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

1. “All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of the person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus and income made in trust to such use, be void and of no effect, regardless of motive, as to all past, present or future creditors; but otherwise shall be valid and effective.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taliaferro v. Taliaferro · Ackers v. First National Bank of Topeka

2. “American doctrine supported by the great weight of federal and state authorities is, that irrespective of statute an individual cannot create out of his own property for his own benefit a trust for himself and thereby defeat his creditors of their lawful demands.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Kan. App. 2d 675 - Southwest National Bank v. Sowers · Reiss v. Hagmann

3. “[t]he doctrine of resulting trusts is founded upon the presumed intention of the parties; and, as a general rule, it arises where, and only where, such may be reasonably presumed to be the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the transaction out of which it is sought to be established. In a resulting trust there is always the element of an intention to create a trust, which is not expressed but is implied or presumed by law from the attendant circumstances and without regard to the particular intention of the parties, so, in a proper case, the trust may exist notwithstanding the party to be charged as trustee may never have agreed to the trust and may have really intended to resist it. However, since a resulting trust is designed to carry the presumptive intention of the parties into effect, not to defeat it, it must be consistent with the intention of the parties at the time of the acquisition of the property and will not be presumed or implied unless taking all the circumstances together it is the fair and reasonable interpretation of their acts and transactions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Semcrude, Lp