Brimson v. Pearrow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “‘ ‘ ‘ The rationale of the doctrine is that an intentional failure upon the part of the grantee to perform the contract to support, where that is the consideration for a deed, raises the presumption of such fraudulent intention from the inception of the contract, and therefore vitiates the deed based upon such consideration. Such contracts are in a class peculiar to themselves, and, where the grantee intentionally fails to perform the contract, the remedy by cancellation, as for fraud, may be resorted to, regardless of any remedy that the grantor may have had also at law. See Salyers v. Smith, 67 Ark. 526 ; 4 R.C.L., p. 509, § 22; Russell v. Robins, 247 Ill. 510 ; Stebbins v. Petty, 209 Ill. 291 ; Spangler v. Warborough, 23 Okla. 806 ; see also Bruer v. Bruer, 109 Minn. 260 ; Abbott v. Sanders, 80 Vt. 179 ; Glocke v. Glocke, 113 Wis. 303 . See also case note 43, L.R.A. (N.S.), 918-925.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. Bryant

2. ““ * * * In the recent case of Green v. Whitney, 215 Ark. 257 , 220 S. W. 2d 119 , we reaffirmed the following-rule stated in the leading case of Edwards v. Locke, 134 Ark. 80 , 203 S. W. 286 : ‘This court is committed to the doctrine, which is supported by the great weight of authority, as announced in 4 R.C.L., p. 509, § 22, that: “Where a grantor conveys land, and the consideration is an agreement by the grantee to support, maintain, and care for the grantor during- the remainder of her or his natural life, and the grantee neglects or refuses to comply with the contract, that the grantor may, in equity, have a decree rescinding the contract and setting aside the deed and reinvesting the grantor with the title to the real estate.” Salyers v. Smith, 67 Ark. 526 -531, 55 S. W. 936 ; Priest v. Murphy, 103 Ark. 464 , 149 S. W. 98 ; Whittaker v. Trammell, 86 Ark. 251 , 110 S. W. 1041 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hendrix v. Thomas

3. “‘And in a court of equity, where bad faith and unconscionable acts can have no allowance or favor, the strength of mental capacity of the parties, the circumstances surrounding them, their relationship, etc., make up the grounds upon which the court can find the real influences that produced the conveyance. And when it is discovered that the party in whose favor the conveyance was made possessed an undue advantage over the grantor, and in person, or by agent, exercised an improper influence over such one, and to the advantage of the grantee, it is an act against conscience and within the cognizance of a court of equity.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Hensley