Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 IND 88 - Westphal v. Heckman

Westphal v. Heckman’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
2
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 152 Ind. App. 365 - Hunter v. Hunter (1972), Shapiro v. Rubens (1948)

7 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

14019161920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ransdel v. Moore · Teegarden v. Lewis · Mescall v. Tully · Patton v. Beecher · Keys v. McDowell

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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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 occu pying 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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The finding does not show that at the time the conveyance was made the grantee intended to obtain the title to the land by means of the promise, and then to hold it for his own use and benefit, and that he then had the formed intention of not carrying out this promise. Such facts if found, would show a fraud inherent in the transaction which would render it voidable from its inception, and which would be sufficient to justify a court of equity in annulling the whole contract and in declaring a constructive trust.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It must further appear that the grantee, at or before the time of such conveyance, abused the confidence reposed in such a way as to improperly influence the grantor, or to mislead or overreach him, and thus to obtain an unconscionable advantage for himself; or the relationship shown between the grantor and the grantee must be of such a character that the exercise of such improper influence can be presumed as a matter of law.” (Our italics.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.