Ferguson v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

cited by 76 later decisions

states following

September 2009

most recently cited

2 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children of Texas v. Stahl (1980), Haile v. Holtzclaw (1967)

2 district · 72 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.

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

““If the will is open to two constructions, that interpretation will be given it which will prevent intestacy. * * *” “To hold a will contingent, it must reasonably appear that the testator affirmatively intended the will not to take effect unless the given contingency did or did not happen, as the case might be. * * *” “ * * * the will indicates that her main desire was to dispose of her property herself and not to die intestate. The fact that she referred to the journey indicates that she was thinking of the necessity for a will if she did not desire to die intestate. * * * ” “ * * * it is hard to believe * * * that Mrs. Morton * * * intended that the whole will should fail and that she should die intestate, if she returned alive from a short visit * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. In re Pearl's Estate
“1. The fact that the testatrix left a will implies that she did not intend to die intestate. 2. A will is construed to be general and not a contingent will unless the intention to the contrary clearly appears either expressly or by necessary implication from a reading of the entire will. 3. If a will is open to two constructions, it will be given the interpretation which prevents intestacy. 4. If the intent to make a contingent will is not apparent, the event mentioned in the will will be treated as an inducement which motivated the preparation and execution of the will, and the will is entitled to probate as a general will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Warren v. Hartnett
““Last Will of Kate F. Morton “Haskell, Texas, May 5th, 1924. “I am going on a journey and I may never come back alive so I make this Will, but I expect to make changes if I live. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. In re Pearl's Estate

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.