Fletcher v. Mathew’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Crosby v. Luehrs (2003), Cheloha v. Cheloha (1998)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 Rettinger ex rel. Standard Oil Co. v. Pierpont · Knox v. Cook · In Re Estate of Lienemann · Fender v. Fender · Oddo v. Speedway Scaffold 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Effectively, absent express intention, an agent may not utilize his position for his or a third party’s personal benefit in a substantially gratuitous transfer.... “Appellant seeks to remove himself from the operation of the general rule. He contends that Mr. Fender orally authorized the transfers. Notwithstanding such a claim, we hold today that any purported oral authorization was ineffective. The power to make any gift must be expressly granted in the instrument itself. “ ‘It is for the common security of mankind . . . “that gifts procurred [sic] by agents . . . from their principals, should be scrutinized with a close and vigilant suspicion.” ’ Harrison v. Harrison, 214 Ga. 393 , 105 S.E.2d 214, 218 (1958). Therefore, in order to avoid fraud and abuse, we adopt a rule barring a gift by an attorney in fact to himself or a third party absent clear intent to the contrary . . . Fender [v. Fender, 285 S.C. 260, 262 , 329 S.E.2d 430, 431 (1985)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘In an action in which relief is sought on account of alleged fraud, the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, or status of unequal footing, when shown, does not shift the position of the burden of proving all elements of the fraud alleged, but nevertheless may be sufficient to allow fraud to be found to have existed when in the absence of such a status it could not be so found, and thus to have the effect of placing the burden of going forward with the evidence upon the party charged with fraud____’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vejraska v. Pumphrey“furnish[] data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.”
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.