Omohundro v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 237 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 283 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Cain v. State (1997), Gaines v. Hamman (1962)
20 federal appellate · 237 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 · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull · Smith v. Bolin · Sanders v. Harder · MacDonald v. Follett
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 283 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“imposed by law because the person holding the title to property would profit by a wrong or would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to keep the property.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The party to a suit, complaining that his opponent is in court with ‘unclean hands’ because of the latter’s conduct in the transaction out of which litigation arose, or with which it is connected, must show that he himself has been injured by such conduct, to justify the application of the principle to the case. The wrong must have been done to the defendant himself and not to some third party.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The following from Sec. 194, Comment d., of the Restatement of Restitution is particularly pertinent: “ ‘Where one person orally undertakes to purchase land on behalf of another, it may be urged that the other cannot enforce a constructive trust because the undertaking is oral and there is no compliance with the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. The answer to this objection is that the other is not enforcing an oral contract, but is enforcing a constructive trust based upon the violation of fiduciary duty. [[Image here]] “ ‘The rule stated in this Section is applicable where one person agrees to purchase property on behalf of another, whether he undertakes to purchase it in the name of the other, or in his own name, or in their joint names.’ [[Image here]] “Constructive trusts have been held to apply where there have been oral promises, or in spite of oral promises, in a number of related situations. Perhaps the most conspicuous of such cases are those dealing with partnership property.” (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eglin v. Schober
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.