Marshall v. Amos’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1994
2 federal appellate · 9 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 Peyton v. McCaslin · Hitt v. Hitt · Morris v. Leverett · Marshall v. Amos · Marshall v. Amos
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The quantum of evidence required by Oklahoma for imposition of a constructive trust is substantial. Mere preponderance of the evidence is not sufficient to establish a constructive trust. Rather, it must be established by evidence which is clear, definite, unequivocal and satisfactory. The evidence must lead to but one conclusion, or leave no reasonable doubt as to the existence of the constructive trust.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In Hitt v. Hitt, Okl., 258 P.2d 599 , we held that it is for the trial court in a case of equitable cognizance to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to the testimony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ritter v. Quinn
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.