DANNER v. Danner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 10 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The gift or bequest of an absolute interest subject to an orally imposed condition has long been a subject of litigation in this Commonwealth. Out of the wealth of cases certain principles have become firmly established. It is clear that where a legacy is induced by the legatee’s promise to hold it for the benefit of another or where the legatees’ promise induces the testator not to change his will, a constructive trust will be erected: Hollis v. Hollis, 254 Pa. 90 , 98 A. 789 ; Blick v. Cockins, 234 Pa. 261 , 83 A. 196 ; Jones v. McKee, 3 Pa. 496 . . . “There is, however, a line of cases where a trust will be constructed on proof of a promise by the legatee to the testator even though that promise did not induce the gift: Keller v. Keller, 351 Pa. 461 , 41 A. 2d 547 ; Metzger v. Metzger, 338 Pa. 564 , 14 A. 2d 285 ; Kauffman v. Kauffman, 266 Pa. 270 , 109 A. 640 ; Washington’s Estate, 220 Pa. 204 , 69 A. 747 . Those cases proceed not on the theory of fraud but rather on the theory of unjust enrichment: Brenneman Estate, 360 Pa. 558 , 63 A. 2d 59 . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Penza Estate

2. “It is axiomatic that to prove a trust by parol the evidence must be clear, precise and indubitable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Falk v. Commissioner