6 So. 3d 534 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “This resulting trust depends for its existence on the actual intent of the creator, expressed in acts other than writing or the spoken word. The conduct of the payor with reference to the price and deed lead the court to infer an intent to have a trust for himself. The theory of enforcement is that of carrying out the intent of the settlor, just as truly as if he had reduced his trust to writing and inserted it in the deed. Resulting trusts are ‘intent enforcing’ just as much as are the usual express trusts. They bear little or no relationship to constructive trusts, which do not arise out of intent but depend for their existence on the wrongful conduct of the defendant which induces a court to adjudge him a trustee.” “ ‘[George G.] Bogert [and George T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 454] at 249 [ (rev.2d ed.1991).]’ “Woodard v. Funderburk, 846 So.2d [363,] 368 [ (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Smith

2. ““[a] trial court ‘should exercise its discretion liberally in favor of granting a jury trial in the absence of strong and compelling reasons to the contrary.’ Fuino v. Morrow, 427 So.2d 710, 712 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s striking a party’s jury demand is whether the court’s action clearly exceeded the limits of its discretion. See Boreal, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 398 So.2d 665, 669 (Ala.1981).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holland v. Sweeney