Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 KAN 201 - Goff v. Goff

Goff v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 1973
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1973

5 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

701916192019301940195019601970decided

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 Lehrling v. Lehrling · Bartholomew v. Guthrie · Grantham v. Conner

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

  1. ““The agreement referred to was not in writing, and was rendered unenforceable by the statute forbidding the creation by parol of express trusts concerning lands. ... A trust did not arise by implication of law from the facts found. The plaintiff, as the holder of the school-land certificate, was practically the owner of the land, subject to the claim of the state for the unpaid purchase price. He assigned the certificate to his father for a recited money consideration. This amounted to a conveyance of the title, and in the absence of fraud or mistake is regarded as conclusive evidence of the transfer of the beneficial interest, precluding a showing of want of consideration for the purpose of establishing an implied trust. . . . The refusal to carry out a verbal promise to reconvey land the title to which is transferred by a deed absolute on its face cannot in itself constitute such a fraud as to make the grantee a trustee for the grantor by operation of law. The-fraud which will produce that result must be something more than the refusal to perform the oral contract, . . .” (p. 204.)”
    2 later decisions 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.