Gaines v. Hamman’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 437 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 457 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Swilley v. Hughes (1972), City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News (2000)
18 federal appellate · 437 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 Gulbenkian v. Penn · Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co. · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull · Omohundro v. Matthews · Tobin v. Garcia
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 457 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If conflicting inferences may be drawn from the deposition and from the affidavit of the same party, a fact issue is presented. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carr, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 224 , wr. ref., New St. Anthony Hotel Co. v. Pryor, Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 620 , wr. ref. It is not the purpose of the summary judgment rule to provide either a trial by deposition or a trial by affidavit, but rather to provide a method of summarily terminating a case when it clearly appears that only a question of law is involved and that there is no genuine issue of fact.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While a confidential or fiduciary relationship does not in itself give rise to a constructive trust, an abuse of confidence rendering the acquisition or retention of property by one person unconscionable against another suffices generally to ground equitable relief in the form of the declaration and enforcement of a constructive trust, and the courts are careful not to limit the rule or the scope of its application by a narrow definition of fiduciary or confidential relationships protected by it. An abuse of confidence within the rule may be an abuse of either a technical fiduciary relationship or of an informal relationship where one person trusts in and relies upon another, whether the relation is a moral, social, domestic, or merely personal one.” Sec. 225, 54 Am. Jr., “Trusts”, p. 173. (Emphasis added) “The abuse of a confidential relationship by acquiring property through the employment of knowledge or interest obtained in such relationship constitutes a sufficient basis for equitable relief in the form of the declaration and enforcement of a constructive trust in respect of such property and in favor of the person wronged. The relationships of trustee and cestui que trust, principal and agent, client and attorney, and employer and employee, are striking, but far from exclusive, examples of confidential relationships within the meaning of this rule. * * * ” Sec. 226, Idem, pp. 173-174. (Emphasis added) “An unfair transaction between a confider and a confidant or fiducia”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hedley v. DuPont“The term 'fiduciary' is derived from the civil law. It is impossible to give a definition to the term that is comprehensive enough to cover all cases. Generally, speaking, it applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith rather than legal obligation, ... The term includes those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary relations.”
1 later decision 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.