Dombrow v. Dombrow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the existence of a fiduciary relationship has been established, the law presumes that any transaction between the parties, by which the dominant party has profited, is fraudulent. This presumption is not conclusive but may be rebutted by clear and convincing proof that the dominant party has exercised good faith and has not betrayed the confidence reposed in him. The burden rests upon the dominant party to produce such evidence, and if the burden is not discharged the transaction will be set aside in equity. [Citations.] The important factors in determining whether a particular transaction is fair include a showing by the fiduciary (1) that he has made a free and frank disclosure of all the relevant information which he had, (2) that the consideration was adequate, and (3) that the principal had competent and independent advice before completing the transaction.” {Dombrow, 401 Ill. at 332-33 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 211 Ill. App. 3d 53 - In Re Estate of Marks

2. ““It is true, as appellant contends, that a fiduciary or confidential relationship will not be presumed from the relationship of parent and child. (McCrillis v. Utterback, 397 Ill. 550 ; O’Malley v. Deany, 384 Ill. 484 .) However, as pointed out in Lipscomb v. Allen, 298 Ill. 537 , and Krieg v. Felgner, 400 Ill. 113 , ‘The term fiduciary or confidential relation, as used in this connection, is a very broad one. It has been said that it exists, and that relief is granted, in all cases in which influence has been acquired and abused, in which confidence has been reposed and betrayed. The origin of the confidence and source of the influence are immaterial. The rule embraces both technical fiduciary relations and those informal relations which exist whenever one man trusts in and relies upon another. The only question is, does such a relation in fact exist? Mayrand v. Mayrand, 194 Ill. 45 .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Ill. App. 3d 822 - Ciolek v. Jaskiewicz