Dunklee v. Kettering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘The use of corpus was restricted by the condition ‘if she needs any of the corpus of this trust estate for living expenses;’ the power to invade corpus was only conferred because ‘it seems to me she is not too amply provided for.’ We think the latter expression refers to her total resources, not merely to the trust estate. He was fully aware of her separate estate and resources, and by placing $40,000 worth of investments in their joint names, he amplified her absolute estate to that extent, although not required to do so under the terms of the antenuptial agreement. The choice of a spendthrift trust of his residuary estate was deliberate and for her own protection against emergency, and particularly against the hazards of investment losses that were so prevalent at the time the will was executed, in December, 1932. The trustees, of course, have no control over the management or use of her separate estate ; it is only by conserving the trust corpus for possible future needs that the testator’s purpose can be given its full effect.” [186 Md. at pp. 96-97]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bregel v. Julier & Bond

2. ““In the instant suit we have a question posed by a classical but seldom settled problem. The beneficiary of the trust here has some assets of her own and there is a duty upon the trustee to provide for her maintenance. As pointed out In re: Martin’s Will, 269 N. Y. 305 , 199 N. E. 491, 494 , quoted in Washington College, supra [ 186 Md. 89 ] at page 95 ‘The primary question in this class of cases always is: does the will constitute an absolute gift of support and maintenance which it makes a charge upon the income from the estate and upon principal, if so then the private income of the beneficiary cannot be considered. If, however, the gift is of income coupled with a provision that the principal may be invaded in case of need, the private income of the beneficiary must be considered in determining whether such need exists,’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bregel v. Julier & Bond

3. “'Ordinarily [authorization] is said to be permissive merely, not being on its face mandatory, but being given its natural significance of a grant of power rather than an imposition of a duty,. and implying either a discretionary or permissive power'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Idowu v. Nesbitt