Schwager v. Schwager’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.2d 754 · 1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1984
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Nichols Assignee v. Eaton et al. · 3 E.H. Smith 520 - Wetmore v. . Wetmore · Moorehead's Estate · Stewart's Estate · 121 Cal. App. 675 - San Diego Trust & Savings Bank v. Heustis
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.
““It would serve no good purpose for us to enter into a castigation of the husband for his plain and apparently willful disregard of an obliga tion imposed upon him by the law of Wisconsin and, in fact, by the laws of all civilized jurisdictions. No doubt there is a thoroughly established public policy which imposes such obligation upon a husband. We are convinced, however, that there is nothing in such policy which requires or, in fact, permits the destruction of a spendthrift trust under the circumstances presented. In the first place, the policy that a person may dispose of his property according to his own wishes, is equally well established. In the instant case, for instance, the testatrix was under no obligation to her son’s wife and children. She was under no obligation to bequeath her property to her son in trust or otherwise. She was at perfect liberty to give it all to a stranger had she so desired. Being thus empowered, it is difficult to ascertain by any ordinary process of reasoning, how or why she should be precluded from disposing of it as she did. The wife and children were not damaged — they were no worse off than before. They were deprived of no meajis afforded by the law to enforce the duty imposed upon the husband for alimony and support.” 109 F.2d at pages 759-760.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘In this connection, it may also be said that the courts have extended themselves at great length to ascertain a favorable intent on the part of the settlor and, in fact, in some of the cases have indulged in a reasoning indicative of the desire sought to be achieved. In such cases the intent has been found because of a failure to express a non-intent.””
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.