Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 ALA 111 - Murphy v. Pipkin

Murphy v. Pipkin’s Empirical Analysis

1914

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1987

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

4019141920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Humes v. O'Bryan & Washington · Hubbard v. Allen · Harrell v. Mitchell · East v. Pace · Goodgame v. Cole & Co.

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

  1. ““The sufficiency of the proof of consideration must depend on the relations between the parties, the circumstances surrounding them at the time, and their conduct subsequent to the transaction. The vendees were the daughter and son-in-law of the vendor. Transactions between parent and child are jealously watched in a court of equity, even when the controversy arises between them, and, when the rights of creditors are involved, fuller proof must be given of an adequate and valuable consideration, and of the good faith of grantee or vendee, than would be required of a stranger.””
    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.