Markham v. Waterman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 state decisions

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

1. ““The old rule that a seemingly unqualified devise in an independent and prior clause of a will cannot be diminished by separate, subsequent clauses of the will (McNutt v. McComb, 61 Kan. 25 , 58 Pac. 965 ; 4 Kent Comm. 270) has been largely superseded by the modern Kansas rule, that the testator’s intention is to be gleaned ‘from the four corners of the instrument’ — from the entire text of the document. Some of our earlier cases foreshadow the coming of this doctrine (Williams v. McKinney, 34 Kan. 514, 519 , 9 Pac. 265 ; Ernst v. Foster, 58 Kan. 438 , 47 Pac. 527 ), and this court was fully committed to it in Bullock v. Wiltberger, 92 Kan. 900 , 142 Pac. 950 , and has followed it consistently in all the later cases [citations].” (p. 95.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hinshaw v. Wright · Mansfield v. Crane

2. ““In this state the studied and consistent public policy has been to maintain as far as may be the natural simplicity of property rights, uncluttered with artificial refinements of the common law. (Simpson v. Mundee and Brown, 3 Kan. 172, 184, 185 .) Whatever form or sort of property, or interest in property, a man owns, in this state, may ordinarily be the subject of legitimate barter and sale.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paulin v. Parker · Wright v. Jenks

3. ““Counsel for appellee contends that where a life estate with power of disposition is created, the remainderman does not take title. His interest may not amount to the dignity of title, but he has an interest or property right, nevertheless, although it may be of little value. And it is a property right or interest which he can sell, and consequently it can be sold for the payment of his debts (Strom v. Wood, 100 Kan. 556 , 164 Pac. 1109 ). . . . Whatever form or sort of property, or interest in property, a man owns in this state, may ordinarily be the subject of legitimate barter and sale, and unless it be exempt property the sheriff may sell it to pay his debts.” (p. 98.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Woolums v. Simonsen