Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 533 SW2D 592 - Flanagan v. DeLapp

Flanagan v. DeLapp’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2008

14 state decisions

901976198019902000decided

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 Elsea v. Smith · Cook v. Higgins · Weiermueller v. Scullin · Swaim v. Martin · Alamo Auction Co. v. Lawson

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

  1. ““First, it qualifies as witnesses those individuals disqualified at common law because of their interest in the outcome of the case. Next, in actions where one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial is dead, the so-called transactions proviso of the statute makes a surviving party incompetent as a witness in his own favor or in favor of one claiming under him. Under this proviso the witness is incompetent only as to those matters about which decedent could have testified if he had lived. Finally, where one of the parties to a contract is deceased, and an executor or administrator is a party to a suit involving such contract, the portion of the statute referred to as the administration proviso makes the surviving party to the contract totally incompetent as a witness except as to matters occurring after probate of the will or appointment of an administrator.” (Emphasis added.) Flanagan at p. 597 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Public policy dictates the necessity to protect the confidential and fiduciary attorney-client relationship. Consequently when a conveyance from a client to an attorney is attacked it is considered presumptively fraudulent and the burden is on the attorney to prove by convincing evidence that the transaction evidenced by the conveyance, as well as the conveyance itself, was fair and equitable in every respect.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Thus, the only attorney-client relationship which Joseph had with any lawyer, so far as the evidence discloses, was the one with DeLapp in connection with the guardianship of the estate of Joseph’s brother. That relationship had continued over a period of time and was one in which Joseph would look to and rely upon DeLapp for professional and confi dential advice and information. It is unrealistic to conclude that said relationship and confidence existed only so long as DeLapp dealt with matters in the brother’s estate but disappeared completely when he dealt with Joseph about a conveyance of his own property.... Accordingly, we hold that a confidential attorney-client relationship existed.”
    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.