25 Tenn. App. 636 - Roberts v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Linda Sue Edwards v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut, P. v. Jackson, III v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut, P. v. Jackson, III v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut (1977), Turner v. Leathers (1950)
2 federal appellate · 59 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.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The circumstances of some transactions are such that the only way in which the fiduciary can rebut the presumption of invalidity is by showing that bis principal bad tbe benefit of independent advice. Brispham’s Principles of Equity, 10th Ed., p. 399; Miller v. Proctor, supra ( 24 Tenn.App. 439 , 145 S.W.(2d) 807 ); Peyton v. William C. Peyton Corp. [ 23 Del.Ch. 321 ], 7 A.(2d) 737, 123 A.L.R. 1482 , and tbe cases collected in tbe annotation, 123 A.L.R. 1505 . Mr. Pomeroy says: ‘ Tbe question as to whether such independent advice is essential is ordinarily determined with respect to the nature of tbe confidence reposed, the nature of tbe transaction, and tbe circumstances in each particular case. In other words, a rule requiring proof of independent advice is ordinarily applied where it is a reasonable requirement and where tbe circumstances are such that it would be difficult to show the fairness of the transaction without proof of independent advice. The rule is peculiarly applicable in gift cases, particularly where the effect of the gift is to impoverish the donor.” Roberts v. Chase, 25 Tenn.App. 651 , 166 S.W.(2d) 651 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““... where the presumption is rebuttable it can be rebutted only by clear evidence of good faith, full knowledge and of independent counsel and consent; or by ‘the clearest and most satisfactory evidence to be addressed’ ”...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reynolds v. Day
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.