Sechler v. Sechler’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church (1985), Yohe v. Yohe (1976)
59 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 Metzger v. Metzger · Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Szabo · Moffitt v. Moffitt · Gassner v. Gassner · Majors v. Majors
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`In passing upon the questions raised on this appeal we must adhere to the well-established rule that a chancellor's findings of fact, approved by a court en banc, have all the force and effect of a jury's verdict if they are supported by adequate evidence and ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal. [Citing cases.] However, the chancellor's "conclusions whether of law or ultimate fact are no more than his reasoning from the underlying facts and are reviewable”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Basic in our approach to the second factor, i.e., the standard of proof required is the rule: ‘It is axiomatic that to prove a trust by parol the evidence must be clear, precise and indubitable’; Danner v. Danner, 366 Pa. 178, 180 , 77 A. 2d 217 . In Moffitt v. Moffitt, 340 Pa. 107, 110 , 16 A. 2d 418 , we had previously said: ‘Evidence to support a parol trust must be direct, positive, express, unambiguous and convincing: [citing cases].’ Unless the evidence equates this standard a parol trust cannot be established. The reason for the rule is evident: unless the evidence of the existence of an oral trust is of the highest probative value, equity should not act to convert an absolute owner ship into an estate of lesser quantity.” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Penza Estate“where the underlying facts themselves are not in esse but are matters of inference and deduction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.