421 So. 2d 1031 - Hendricks v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 148 Ill. App. 3d 581 - Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. (1986), 515 So. 2d 1183 - Mullins v. Ratcliff (1987)
60 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 Quinn v. Phipps · Croft v. Alder · Ham v. Ham · McGarrh v. State · Wofford v. Wofford
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever there is a relation between two people in which one person is in a position to exercise a dominant influence upon the former, arising either from weakness of mind or body, or through trust, the law does not hesitate to characterize such a relationship as fiduciary in character.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage“A fiduciary relationship may arise in a legal, moral, domestic or personal context, where there appears "on the one side an overmastering influence or, on the other, weakness, dependence, or trust, justifiably reposed." Additionally a confidential relationship, which imposes a duty similar to a fiduciary relationship, may arise when one party justifiably imposes a special trust or confidence in another, so that the first party realizes the care and vigilance that he normally would exercise on entering into a transaction with a stranger.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“language. In the next sentence the Court adds: The usual method of proving independent consent and action in such cases, and probably the only way it can be clearly proven, is by showing that in making the deed the grantor acted on the advice of a competent person disconnected from the grantee and devoted wholly to the grantor's interest. [citations omitted] Ham, 110 So. at 585 . While this is indeed a strong suggestion, this Court has not demanded routinely, a showing of”
2 later decisions 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.