Duncan v. Rayfield’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2012
1 district · 11 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 Murphy v. Carron · Pizzo v. Pizzo · Parker v. Blakeley · Adams v. Adams · Davis v. Roberts
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A resulting trust “is created by operation of law from the facts of the transaction and not from an agreement, from what the parties do and never from what they agree to do.” Wenzelburger v. Wenzelburger, 296 S.W.2d 163, 166 [5] (Mo.App.1956). A resulting trust must arise, if at all, at the instant the deed is taken. “Unless the transaction is such that the moment the title passes the trust results from the transaction itself, then no trust results. It cannot be created by subsequent occurrences.” Pizzo v. Pizzo, supra, 295 S.W.2d at 385 [9],”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matlock v. Matlock“To establish a resulting trust “an extraordinary degree of proof is required. ... vague or shadowy evidence or a preponderance of the evidence is not sufficient.” Pizzo v. Pizzo, 365 Mo. 1224 , 295 S.W.2d 377, 385 [10] (banc 1956).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matlock v. Matlock
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.