Johnson v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 1990 · most notably 107 Ill. 2d 120 - Chicago Investment Corp. v. Dolins (1985), 30 Ill. App. 3d 631 - Arrington v. Walter E. Heller International Corp. (1975)
4 federal appellate · 32 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 Neagle v. McMullen · Roche v. Roche · Niland v. Kennedy · Hogg v. Eckhardt · Decker v. Decker
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While John was frequently with his father the last few weeks of his life, there is nothing in the record to indicate any relation of confidence or trust between them other than would ordinarily exist between a father and his son. There is no evidence that the defendant acquired a dominion over his father or any control of his business, or that he exercised or attempted to exercise any influence in the conduct of his business. His presence at the time the deed was made did not raise any presumption of a fiduciary relationship, as such is known in the law. . . . Where it is sought to establish a fiduciary relation by parol evidence, the proof must be clear, convincing and so strong, unequivocal and unmistakable as to lead to but one conclusion. (Neagle v. McMullen, 334 Ill. 168 ; Winkelman v. Winkelman, 307 id. 249 ; Pillsbury v. Bruns, 301 id. 578.)” (Emphasis added.)”
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.