Weisberg v. Koprowski’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2016
23 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 Gerace v. Gerace · 4 N.J. Super. 531 - State v. Hunter · State v. LeFante · Mott v. Iossa · State v. Pillo
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, where one of certain relationships, usually of blood or marriage, exists between the payor and the transferee, the inference to be drawn is not of resulting trust but of gift or advancement, and the burden is upon him who claims a resulting trust to show that the payor manifested an intention that the transferee should not have the beneficial interest in the property. The modern test of relationship which will raise an inference of gift is whether the transferee is a natural object of the bounty of the payor. Restatement, supra, pp. 1355 et seq.; 3 Scott Trusts (1939), p. 2256 et seq. Thus, a gift or advancement is presumed where a husband takes title in the name of his wife, Lipp v. Fielder, 72 N.J.Eq. 439 [ 66 A.2d 189 ] (E. & A.1907); Gorrell v. Gorrell, 97 N.J.Eq. 367 [ 127 A. 346 ] (E. & A.1925), or a father in the name of his son, Brower v. Brower, 98 N.J.Eq. 218 [ 130 A. 222 ] (Ch.1925), affirmed 99 N.J.Eq. 414 [ 131 A. 918 ] (E. & A.1926), or a stepfather in favor of a stepchild, Mott v. Iossa, 119 N.J.Eq. 185 [ 181 A. 689 ] (Ch.1935). But the usual inference of a resulting trust and not of a gift is said to arise where the wife is payor and takes title in the name of her husband, or, as in the instant case, where the child purchases the property and takes title in the name of his parent. Pinkinson v. Pinkinson. 93 N.J.Eq. 583 [ 117 A. 48 ] (Ch.1922); Restatement, supra, sec. 442, comment (a), pp. 1356-6. Most authorities are agreed that the application of th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shayegan v. Baldwin“a resulting trust will be declared in favor of the one paying the purchase price of property transferred to another unless it is shown that the one paying the price manifested an intention that no resulting trust should arise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the question of gift or trust is a matter of intention and the court's quest is to discover the payor's intention as revealed by all the circumstances.”
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.