Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 SW2D 516 - Hogan v. Cooper

Hogan v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2009

4 state decisions

20198119902000decided

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 Turner v. Leathers · 25 Tenn. App. 636 - Roberts v. Chase · 41 Tenn. App. 710 - Peoples Bank v. Baxter · Richmond v. Christian · 42 Tenn. App. 407 - Hollis v. Thomas

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. ““It is well established that when two parties enter into a confidential or fiduciary relationship and the dominant party receives a gift or other benefit from the other party a presumption arises that some improper advantage was taken ‘.. .either of the confidential relation existing ... or of the weakness and fraility of the party from whom the benefit was received, ... ’ thus rendering the transaction invalid. Graves v. White, 63 Tenn. 38 , 4 Baxt. 38 (1874); Turner v. Leathers, 191 Tenn. 292 , 232 S.W.2d 269 (1950); Roberts v. Chase, et al., 25 Tenn.App. 636 , 166 S.W.2d 641 (1942); Hollis v. Thomas, 42 Tenn.App. 407 , 303 S.W.2d 751 (1957). The presumption of invalidity, however, is rebuttable and the rule in this State is that clear and convincing evidence of fairness will suffice. Proof that the donor received independent advice respecting the consequences and advisability of the gift is one example, but not the only one, of such proof of fairness. Roberts v. Chase, supra; Peoples Bank v. Baxter, et al., 41 Tenn.App. 710 , 298 S.W.2d 732 (1956); See also Hester v. Hester, 81 Tenn. 189 , 13 Lea. 189 (1884). Id. at 107-08 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.