Shapiro v. Rubens’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.2d 659 · 1948
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education (1966), Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Wag-Aero, Inc. (1984)
52 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Hillmon · Schilling v. Schwitzer-Cummins Co. · Westphal v. Heckman · Whitney v. Fox · Edmundson v. Friedell
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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 laiv mill presume that improper influence was exerted and that the transaction is fraudulent. * * * “This so-called presumption, when indulged, arises out of relations which exist between the contracting parties regardless of any facts or circumstances having a tendency to show that a confidence was reposed by one of the parties and an influence gained by the other. Proof of the existence of such a relation between the parties establishes prima facie that the dominant party to such relation occupies a position of trust and confidence which he must not abuse.” (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The primary and basic test as to the adequacy of findings is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues in the case so as to provide a basis for purposes of decision.”
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.