Treece v. Treece’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The case of Schatz v. Wintersteen, 201 Okl. 660 , 208 P.2d 1136, 1139 , is similar in some respects to the present case. In speaking there of the parent-child relationship and undue influence, we said: “ ‘The fact that the relationship of father and son existed between the parties is not in itself sufficient to raise the presumption of fraud and undue influence. It is only when in addition thereto a confidential relationship is shown to exist' between them that the presumption arises and casts the burden upon the party claiming the benefits of the transaction to prove the same to be fair and free from fraud. Flowers v. Flowers, supra; Weitz v. Moulden, supra. ( 109 Okl. 119 , 234 P. 583 )” * * * ⅜ * * “The plaintiff urges that a confidential relationship is shown by the evidence in this case. We do not believe that such relationship is established. In defining a confidential relation, this Court held in Hamburg v. Doak, 207 Okl. 517 , 251 P.2d 510 : “ ‘A confidential relation arises by reason of kinship between parties or profession, business or social relations that would reasonably lead an ordinary prudent person in management of his business affairs to repose that degree of confidence in the defendant, largely resulting in substitution of the will of the defendant for that of the plaintiff in material matters involved in the transaction.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowen v. Hamilton

2. ““A confidential relationship does not necessarily arise from the relationship of parent and child; and in determining the validity of deeds from parent to child the existence of fraud and undue influence depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, and if the evidence of plaintiff fails to show fraud and undue influence and a confidential relationship between grantor and grantee, then the plaintiff’s cause must fall.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bowen v. Hamilton