Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 Ky. 152 - Security Trust Co. v. Wilson

Security Trust Co. v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc. (1991), Adams v. Ison (1952)

5 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

20019481950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Abbitt v. . Gregory · Deemer v. Weaver, Exrx. · Kurry v. Frost · Small v. Dorsett · Small v. . Dorsett

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The relationship] may exist under a variety of circumstances; it exists in all cases where there has been a special confidence reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing confidence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““When a cajise of action mentioned in KRS 413.090 to 413.160 accrues against a resident of this state, and he by absconding or concealing himself or by any other indirect means obstructs the prosecution of the action, the time of the continuance of the absence from the state or obstruction shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action shall be commenced.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Where a confidential relationship exists between the parties, failure to discover the facts constituting fraud may be excused. In such a case so long as the relationship continues uprepudiated [sic], there is nothing to put the injured party on inquiry, and he cannot be said to have failed to use diligence in detecting the fraud. Thus it has been held that a complainant is not chargeable with want of diligence in not discoveming [sic] the fraud of his guardian in concealing the receipt and existence of property where such guardian was his step-father, in whose family, and as whose child he was brought up, and in whom he had implicit confidence, there, being no reason to suspect that a fraud was being practiced.”
    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.