May v. May’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 310 · 1897
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 22 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2002 · most notably Carrier v. . Carrier (1919), 107 Wash. 2d 693 - Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center v. Holman (1987)
14 federal appellate · 22 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McPherson v. · Hammond v. Haws · Wilson v. Wilson · Scott v. Rand
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The power of a court of equity to remove a trustee, and to substitute another in his place, is incidental to its paramount duty to see that trusts are properly executed; and may properly be exercised whenever sueh a state of mutual ill-feeling, growing out of his behavior, exists between the trustees, or between the trustee in question and the beneficiaries, that his continuance in office would be detrimental to the execution of the trust, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent the cotrustee or the beneficiaries from working in harmony with him, and although charges of misconduct against him are either not made out, or are greatly exaggerated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The power of a court of equity to remove a trustee, and to substitute another in his place, is incidental to its paramount duty to see that trusts are properly executed; and may properly be exercised whenever such a state of mutual ill-feeling growing out of his behavior, exists between ... the trustee in question and the beneficiaries, that his continuance in office would be detrimental to the execution of the trust, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent ... the beneficiaries from working in harmony with him, and although charges of misconduct against him are either not made out, or are greatly exaggerated. [Citations omitted.] May v. May, 167 U.S. 310, 320-321 , 17 S.Ct. 824 [828], 42 L.Ed. 179, 184 (1897).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“untrustworthy, dishonest, dictatorial, and disagreeable in manner, and incompetent as a business man.”
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.