De Vrahnos v. George’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 1989
22 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 Colton v. Stanford · 190 Cal. App. 2d 151 - Mashon v. Haddock · 188 Cal. App. 2d 841 - Lewetzow v. Sapiro · Robison v. Hanley · 83 Cal. App. 2d 221 - MacDonald v. Rosenfeld
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is as stated in Lewetzow v. Sapiro, 188 Cal.App.2d 841, 845 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 126 ]: ‘It is axiomatic that a finding of ultimate fact embraces the necessary probative facts to sustain it. Inclusion of evidentiary facts would add nothing of value and would needlessly embellish the structure of the findings with rococo details. ’ “. . . The ultimate fact at issue is whether respondent violated his duties as a ‘trustee,’ and the trial court specifically found on this issue. (See Stack v. Welder, 137 Cal.App. 647 [ 31 P.2d 426 ], where the court held that the ultimate fact to he determined is the trustee’s good faith.)” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““All transactions between a trustee and his beneficiary during the existence of the trust, or while the influence acquired by the trustee remains, by which he obtains any advantage from Ms beneficiary, are presumed to be entered into by the latter without sufficient consideration, and under undue influence. ’ ’”
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.