Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 KAN 673 - Purl v. Purl

Purl v. Purl’s Empirical Analysis

1921

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
April 1979
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1979 · most notably In Re Estate of Works (1950), Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick (1922)

27 state decisions

70192119301940195019601970decided

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 Cole v. Cole · Carter v. Carter · Peet v. Peet · Smith v. Chester · Bryant v. Flanner

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

  1. ““A devise may vest, although time of enjoyment may be postponed.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘. . . where a gift to survivors is preceded by a life or other prior interest, it takes effect in favor of those who survive the period of distribution, and those only, unless a special contrary intent is found in the will.’ ” (p. 680.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““One of those rules is that ‘a remainder must be construed to be vested if possible.’ While the mechanical method of interpreting wills prevailed, this rule was an obsession of some courts and text-writers who, therefore, gave it exaggerated importance. Some of the rules for the interpretation of wills and some of the terminology accompanying that subject are no more than inventions employed for the purpose of converting contingent into vested remainders. The correct doctrine is stated by the supreme court of Illinois in the recent case of Smith v. Chester, 272 Ill. 428 : “ ‘We are not unmindful of the rule that in: cases of doubt or ambiguity in the language used in creating a remainder, a construction is favored that will make the remainder a vested one, but such rule must give way to the intention of the testatrix as expressed in the will.’ ” (p. 681.)”
    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.