Mudd v. Lanier’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably United States v. Colton (2000), Dominick v. Dixie National Life Insurance (1987)
8 federal appellate · 65 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 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · Deitrick v. Greaney · McDonald v. McDonald · National Park Bank v. L. & N. R. R.
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]hen both parties are intelligent and fully capable of taking care of themselves and dealing at arms' length with no confidential relations, . . . no duty to disclose exists when information is not requested, and . . . mere silence is then not a fraud." 247 Ala. at 377 , 24 So.2d at 562 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is often true the beneficiaries of a trust, though they own a vested interest, are not necessary parties to a suit in equity by the trustee. That is true when the suit does not affect the relations between the trustee or the trust estate and the beneficiary, as when the trustee is seeking to enforce a security or collect a debt for the estate. Adler v. First Nat. Bank of Birmingham, 233 Ala. 325 , 171 So. 904 ; Silverstein v. First Nat. Bank, 231 Ala. 565 , 165 So. 827 , and cases there cited; and when some person is seeking in equity to reduce the assets of the estate, as to which there is no conflict of interest between the estate and beneficiary. The trustee then represents the beneficiary. Watts v. Steele, 19 Ala. 656 , 54 Am.Dec. 207.”
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.