Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 OR 486 - Parrish v. Parrish

Parrish v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis

1898

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
May 1949
most recently cited

1 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 1949

1 district · 18 state decisions

80189819001910192019301940decided

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 Moore v. Crawford · Brison v. Brison · Ryan v. . Dox · Wheeler v. . Reynolds · Goelz v. Goelz

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

  1. ““The essence of the fraud consists in the existence of a wrongful' intent at the time to eventually appropriate the property while lending countenance to the belief in the owner that it was designed to.be used for, and would finally inure to, his benefit. It differs from a promise with a purpose of complying therewith at the appointed time, and a breach thereof, for it is settled and conceded that a mere failure to fulfill the promise is not fraud, and the statute applies in such a case; but if the evil intent primarily existed, as above suggested, the transaction is fraudulent, and without the statute.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A second well-settled and even common form of trusts ex maleficio occurs whenever a person acquires the legal title to land or other property by means of any intentionally false and fraudulent verbal promise to hold the same for a certain specified purpose — as, for example, a promise to convey the land to a certain designated individual, or to reconvey it to the grantor, and the like— and, having thus fraudulently obtained the title, he retains, uses, and claims the property as absolutely his own, so that the whole transaction by means of which the ownership is obtained is in fact a scheme of actual deceit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.