Lacey v. Van Royen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A resulting trust is one which exists because of the inferred or presumed intention of the parties where the terms of the disposition or accompanying facts establish that the beneficial interest is not to go with legal title. Siemiesz v. Amend, 237 Md. 438 , 206 A. 2d 723 . Since the law creates a strong presumption in favor of the legal title as evidenced by a deed, Mountford v. Mountford, 181 Md. 212 , 29 A. 2d 258 , a person who attempts to establish a resulting trust has the burden of proving such trust by plain, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Siemiesz v. Amend, supra; Fasman v. Pottashnick, 188 Md. 105 , 51 A. 2d 664 . Indeed, this Court has stated that the evidence must be so clear and strong as to remove every reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust. Gray v. Harriet Lane Home, 192 Md. 251 , 64 A. 2d 102 ; Sands v. Church, Etc., 181 Md. 536 , 30 A. 2d 771 . Parol evidence may be sufficient to establish a resulting trust, but the court will view it with great caution because it impeaches a document executed according to law and recorded as evidence of title. Any other rule would disturb the reliance which the public places upon land title instruments. Siemiesz v. Amend, supra; Fitch v. Double ‘U’ Sales Corp., 212 Md. 324 , 129 A. 2d 93 .” Id. at 675-76.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Ensor v. Ensor

2. “[T]he burden of proving the solvency of the debtor, that is, that he retained sufficient means to pay his debts after the voluntary conveyance, is on the transferee.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Field v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Abatement Environmental Resources, Inc.) · Damazo v. Wahby

3. “Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or will be rendered insolvent by it is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to his actual intent, if the conveyance is made or the obligation is incurred without fair consideration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Field v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Abatement Environmental Resources, Inc.)