Salyer v. Salyer’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Leonard v. Counts (1980), Gifford v. Dennis (1985)
5 federal appellate · 30 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 Fred C. Walker Agency, Inc. v. Lucas · Kellow v. Bumgardner · Smith v. Smith · Jesser v. Armentrout's Ex'or
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In an action or suit by or against a person who, from any cause, is incapable of testifying, or by or against the committee, trustee, executor, administrator, heir, or other representative of the person so incapable of testifying, no judgment or decree shall be rendered in favor of an adverse or interested party founded on his uncorroborated testimony; and in any such action or suit, if such adverse party testifies, all entries, memoranda, and declarations by the party so incapable of testifying made while he was capable, relevant to the matter in issue, may be received as evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Muth v. Gamble“[I]t is well settled that when one person pays or assumes payment of the purchase price money or a part thereof, for property, but has legal title conveyed to another with no express mention of a trust on the face of the conveyance, a resulting trust arises from the transaction and the person named as grantee in the conveyance is a trustee for the party from whom the consideration is proceeded .... A resulting trust is a mere creature of equity, founded upon presumptive intention and designed to carry that intention into effect, not to defeat it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ledford v. Ledford“Indirect trusts “arise from the evident intention of the parties, or the nature of the transaction, although without any express declaration of trust.” 1 Minor on Real Property §451 at 603 (2d ed. F. Ribble 1928). One class of such trusts is a resulting trust, which is enforceable in equity and may arise without a writing. Id. at 603-04. Resulting trusts “include such interests as arise from presumed intention, which allots a beneficial ownership to some party other than him in whom is vested the legal title.” Id. at 604.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wiltshire v. Pollard
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.