Wright v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably 68 N.C. App. 588 - Collins v. Davis (1984), 116 N.C. App. 493 - Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Ward Transformer Co. (1994)
31 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 Fulp v. Fulp · Bowen v. Darden · Mims v. Mims · Waddell v. Carson · Cline v. Cline
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trust of this sort does not arise from or depend on any agreement between the parties. It results from the fact that one man’s money has been invested in land and the conveyance taken in the name of another. ... The trust is created in order to effectuate ivhat the law presumes to have been the intention of the parties in these circumstances — that the person to whom the land ivas conveyed hold it as trustee for the person who supplied the purchase money.... The general rule is that the trust is created, if at all, in the same transaction in which the legal title passes, and by virtue of the consideration advanced before or at the time the legal title passes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where the claim of unjust enrichment rests upon the owner’s express, unenforceable promise to convey an interest in the land to the improver, the improver must prove the promise^] not only because the plaintiff has both pleaded and attempted to prove an express promise but because of the relationship of husband and wife which exists between the parties. In cases not involving special relationships between the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment may be invoked upon a theory of an implied promise to pay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Not every enrichment of one by the voluntary act of another is unjust. “Where a person has officiously conferred a benefit upon another, the other is enriched but is not considered to be unjustly enriched. The recipient of a benefit voluntarily bestowed without solicitation or inducement is not liable for their value.” This rule is particularly applicable where a husband makes improvements to his wife’s land because of the presumption that the improvements constitute a gift.”
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.