Trigg v. Trigg’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Galvan v. Miller (1968), Hogsett v. Hanna (1936)
1 federal appellate · 34 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 Beals ex rel. Walker v. Ares · Cardenas v. Ortiz · Kocourek v. Marak · Anderson v. Reed · L. M. Wiley & Co. v. Prince
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the result of moral, social, or domestic force exerted upon a party, so as to control the free action of his [or her] will....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gillette · State v. Lamure““The appellant (wife) also contends that the appellee (husband) knew, and had known for a long time, that the appellant was unhappy with him, and would sooner or later get a divorce, and that he executed the deed with his eyes open. But was the judgment and. consent of the appellee the day he executed the deed free and not blinded? Though his eyes may have been open, it apparently was the constant importunities and ‘nagging’ to convey the property that, coupled with his hope and desire to have a happy home and prevent a divorce, caused him to make the conveyance. If she was unhappy with him and he knew of it, and she conveyed to him the thought that she would be happy with him and would not secure a divorce or abandon him if he transferred the ranch to her, and he did transfer the ranch to her, and she did abandon him after such transfer, is that not a species of fraud and deceit?””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Curtis“Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person respecting property, which either might, if unmarried; subject, in transactions between themselves, to the general rules of common law which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes v. Hughes
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.