King v. . Talbot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 198 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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * the just and true rule is, that the trustee is bound to employ such diligence and such prudence in the care and management, as in general, prudent men of discretion and intelligence in such matters, employ in their own like affairs. “ This necessarily excludes all speculation, all investments for an uncertain and doubtful rise in the market, and, of course, everything that does not take into view the nature and object of the trust, and the consequences of a mistake in the selection of the investment to be made. “ It, therefore, does not follow, that, because prudent men may, and often do, conduct their own affairs with the hope of growing rich, and therein take the hazard of adventures which they deem hopeful, trustees may do the same; the preservation of the fund, and the procurement of a jüst income therefrom, are primary objects of the creation of the trust itself, and are to be primarily regarded.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re the Construction of the Will of Robbins · Smith v. Keteltas

2. ““This last clause neither added to nor in any -wise affected the duty or responsibility of these executors. Without it, they were clothed with discretion; with it, their discretion was to be exercised with all the care and prudence belonging to their trust relation to the beneficiaries. Such is the distinct doctrine of the cases very largely cited by the counsel for the parties; and is, I think, the necessary conclusion from the just rule of duty I have stated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reed v. Stevens

3. “In their private affairs, they (fiduciaries) do, and they lawfully may, put their principal funds at hazard; in the affairs of a trust they may not. The very nature of their relation to it forbids it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 N.J. Super. 578 - Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Price