Vanderwerken v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Insofar as the demurrer is concerned, defendants argue that as the time to contest the will has expired plaintiff is precluded from claiming, and rely upon R. S. 1931 Supp. 22-222 and decisions of this court interpreting that statute as it existed before it was amended, especially Medill v. Snyder, 71 Kan. 590, 81 Pac. 216 . The difficulty with this argument is that it assumes that the rights of the absent child depend upon a contest of the will, which is not true. (Spiker v. Burns, 113 Kan. 572 , 214 Pac. 426 .) The child may be well content with every provision of the will with the single exception that, owing to .his being absent and reported dead, he was given nothing. The statute (R. S. 22-243) provides: “ ‘When a testator at the time of executing his will shall have a child absent and reported to be dead, . . . the absent child . . . shall take the same share of the estate, both real and personal, that it would have been entitled to if the testator had died intestate. . . .’ and makes provisions for contribution. Under its terms the rights of such child absent and reported to be dead are not dependent upon the will being contested (9 R. C. L. 41, 28 R. C. L. 81, 18 C. J. 838), and the trial court properly overruled the demurrer.” (p. 45.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanson v. Hoffman