Eckhardt v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It must be remembered, however, that this is merely a rule of construction which will yield to the intention of the testator, if the context of the will so requires, and that it is not a rule of property, as is the rule against perpetuities, which operates unflinchingly and independently of the intention of the testator. “This is made clear from Hoggatt v. Clopton, 142 Tenn. 184, 185, 193 , 217 S. W. 657 , 659, where it is stated: ‘From these authorities, and from many others that might be cited, it is apparent that the construction placed upon the expressions used in Vaughn v. Cator Mecham v . Graham, Katzenberger v. Weaver, Frank v. Frank, [sup ra], and Scruggs v. Mayberry [ 135 Tenn. 586 , 188 S. W. 207 ], would in each case have yielded to any clear expression of the testator indicative of his purpose to make the death of the first taker mean a death at any time, and it was because no such clear intention was to be found in any of those wills that the rule in question was applied.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Griffin v. Griffin · Vickers v. Vickers

2. “[R]ules of construction do not vary with the character of parties litigant, nor do they permit examiners of titles to isolate such words as “if he die with or without issue”, or words of like legal import, and to attribute to them the unerring significance of the death of the first legatee or devisee before the testator. (Emphasis supplied). 176 Tenn. at 44-45 , 137 S.W.2d at 305 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. Bittikofer