Jenkins v. Pye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is insisted that, when, in this case, the relation of parent and child was shown, the burden was then upon the father to show that the transaction was in all respects fair and honest. “The authorities do not support this broad statement of the rule. In Jenkins v. Pye (1838), 12 Peters 241 , 9 L. Ed. 1070 , in which case a daughter twenty-three years of age had conveyed lands to her father, it was said: ‘But the grounds mainly relied upon to invalidate the deed, were, that being from a daughter to her father, rendered it, as least, prima facie void. And if not void on this ground, it was so, because it was obtained by the undue influence of paternal authority. The first ground of objection seeks to establish the broad principle, that a deed from a child to a parent, conveying the real estate of the child, ought, upon considerations of public policy, growing out of the relation of the parties, to be deemed void; and numerous cases in the English chancery have been referred to, which are supposed to establish this principle. We do not deem it necessary to travel over all these authorities; we have looked into the leading cases, and cannot discover anything to warrant the broad and unqualified doctrine contended for on the part of the appellees. All the cases are accompanied with some ingredient, showing undue influence exercised by the parent, operating upon the fears or hopes of the child; and sufficient to show reasonable grounds to presume, that the act was not perfectly ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Towson v. Moore · Turner v. Turner

2. “The grounds mainly relied upon to invalidate the deed were, that being from a daughter to a father rendered it, at least prima facie, void ; and if not. void on this ground, it was so because it was obtained by the undue influence of paternal authority. The first ground of objection seeks to establish the broad principle that a deed from a child to a parent, conveying the real estate of the child, ought, upon considerations of public policy growing out of the relations of the parties, to be deemed void; and numerous cases in the English chancery have been referred to, which are supposed to establish this principle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Towson v. Moore

3. “The bill takes the alternative ground that the deed ... was ... obtained by undue influence ... (which) the defendants positively deny ... The case of complainants stands alone on the broad and naked principle that all transactions or dealings between parent and child by which a benefit passes to the former is indicted ipso facto by the policy of the law. We deny that such is the settled rule of law, and confidently assert that in every adjudged case there was some circumstances of undue influence proved and required by the court as a required ingredient, (citing authorities) 37 U.S. at 243 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dutcher v. Dutcher