10 N.J. Super. 175 - Forbringer v. Romano’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1977
6 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 9 N.J. Eq. 702 - Gifford v. Thorn · 102 N.J. Eq. 235 - Peer v. Jenkins · 121 N.J. Eq. 366 - Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Scott · Traverso v. Traverso · 123 N.J. Eq. 6 - Byrne v. Byrne
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Another suggestion put forth by the appellant is that the decedent's purpose, if not offending the rule against perpetuities, nevertheless imposes an unreasonable restraint upon the alienation of property. Parenthetically, we divulge our opinion that the period of 35 years specified by the testator was intended to commence at his death. There is a distinction between restraints on use and enjoyment and restraints on alienation. Trusts are normally associated with the former. And then in the consideration of the subject a further distinction must be made between an active and a passive trust. In general, a restraint solely on use and enjoyment will not be nullified unless it clearly exceeds reasonable limitations in the circumstances of the given case. Certain aspects of the subject were discussed in Speth v. Speth, supra, in which it is disclosed that our courts in this particular are not in accord with Professor Gray and the English cases. Vide, Mesce v. Gradone, 1 N.J. 159 (1948). Suffice here to say that we classify the present testamentary trust as an active one, and in the circumstances the appellant's point is not meritorious. A postponement of the enjoyment of corpus has been repeatedly approved.”
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.