Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 W. Va. 272 - Kidwell v. Rogers

103 W. Va. 272 - Kidwell v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1982

8 state decisions

301927193019401950196019701980decided

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 Uhl v. Ohio River Railroad · Van Horne v. . Campbell · Flagg v. Eames · 46 W. Va. 426 - Goldsmith v. Goldsmith · Medley v. Medley

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

  1. ““Executory interests are held to be not mere possibilities, but substantial interests which descend by inheritance before the happening of the contingency upon which they depend. 4 Kents Comm., p. 284 (*p.); Thompson supra par. 2199; 24 A. & E. Ency. Law, p. 455-6; 11 R. C. L. p. 484-5; 21 C. J. p. 1032, par. 231; Kean’s Lessee v. Hoffecker, 2 Harr. 103 , 29 Am. Dec. 336 . A limitation similar to the one here was discussed in Medley v. Medley, 81 Va. 265 , decided in 1886. That case is of particular weight because the Virginia statute of descents at that time w;as practically the same as ours now. That case holds: ‘Such devises are not mere possibilities, but substantial interests, and as respects transmissibility, stand on the same footing with contingent remainders. If the contingency whereon the vesting depends, is a collateral event irrespective of attainment to a given age and surviving a given period, the death of the devisee pending the contingency, works no exclusion, but simply substitutes ánd lets in the devisee’s representative.’ ””
    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.