Hendrix v. Hendrix’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The law forbids a trustee, and all other persons occupying a fiduciary or quasi fiduciary position, from taking any personal advantage, touching the thing or subject as to which fiduciary position exists; or, as expressed by another, ‘whereever one person is placed in such relation by another, by the act or consent of that other, or the act of a third person, or of the law, that he becomes interested for him or interested with him in any subject of property or business, he is prohibited from acquiring rights in that subject antagonistic to the person with whose interest he has become associated.’ If such a person acquires an interest in property as to which such a relation exists he holds it as a trustee for the benefit of those in whose interest he was prohibited from purchasing, to the extent of prohibition. This rule applies to tenants in common by descent, with the same force and reason as it does to persons standing in a direct fiduciary relation to others. For they stand by operation of law in a confidental relation to each other, as to the joint property, and the duty is imposed on them to protect and secure their common interests. They have a community of interest which produces a community of duty, and imposes on each one the duty to exercise good faith to the others. Neither can take advantage of the other by purchasing an outstanding title or incumbrance and asserting it against them. Such an act would be inconsistent with good faith, and ‘against the reciprocal o”

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

2. “Furthermore, an oral gift of land is not enforceable unless there is actual possession, followed by making of valuable improvements.... The expenditures made by the donee in reliance upon the gift supply consideration, and the possession and betterment constitute such part performance as to take the case out of the statute of frauds.... The fact that the improvements were made in reliance upon the gift must be directly and unequivocally proved; mere proof that the donee received possession of the land, and has made improvements upon it, will raise no presumption of his purpose .... If the improvements made by the party can reasonably be accounted for in sortie [sic] other way than by a contract between the parties, then such possession and improvements will ordinarily not avail as a part performance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Ark. App. 12 - Wise v. Wise