Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Wash. App. 139 - Diel v. Beekman

7 Wash. App. 139 - Diel v. Beekman’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 88 Wash. 2d 887 - Roberts v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1977), State v. Michielli (1997)

34 state decisions

14019721980199020002010decided

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 54 Wash. 2d 570 - Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc. · Burns v. . McCormick · Walker v. Bohannan · 80 Wash. 2d 293 - Friedlander v. Friedlander · Woolley v. . Stewart

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

  1. “"An express trust is created only if the settlor manifests an intention to create it, although the manifestation may be made by conduct as well as by words. A resulting trust arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person taking or holding the property should have the beneficial interest in the property. In other words, an. express trust is created if it appears that there was an affirmative intention to create it; whereas in the case of a resulting trust the circumstances indicate the absence of an intention to give the beneficial interest to the person in whom the legal title to the property is vested."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[I] n an action . . . where the adverse party sues or defends ... as deriving right or title by, through or from any deceased person . . . then a party in interest or to the record, shall not be admitted to testify in his or her own behalf as to any transaction had by him or her with, or any statement made to him or her, or in his or her presence, by any such deceased . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[TJhe whole doctrine of resulting trusts is founded upon the principle of a presumed intention to create a trust; and where the facts and circumstances are such as reasonably indicate an absence of such intention or indicate a contrary intention, the principle should not be applied. 65 C. J. 366, Trusts, § 141; 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed.), 82, § 1040.”
    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.