Walker v. Buhl’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1998
14 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 King v. . Talbot · White v. Sherman · Dickinson · Kimball v. Whitney · Brown v. French
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When such a fund passes into the hands of a trustee, it comes impressed with a double duty, first, to so invest it that it can be turned over at the expiration of the trust period without loss, and, second, to secure an income therefrom. He must act honestly and faithfully and in what he believes to be .the best interest of the cestui que trust. He must exercise a sound discretion. He is bound to proceed with diligence in investigating the nature of the proposed investment and to use such care in deciding as, in general, prudent men of intelligence and integrity in such matters employ in their own affairs when making a permanent investment.” In re Buhl’s Estate, 211 Mich. 124, 131 (12 A. L. R. 569).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is a generally accepted rule that it is not prudent to invest trust funds in unsecured notes of an individual or of a partnership. We have found no decision which announces a contrary rule where the trust contemplated an investment of a permanent nature.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. McCluskey
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.