Leonard v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1942
10 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 Taft v. Taft · Shackeltow v. Sebree · Lautenshlager v. Lautenshlager · Schuffert v. Grote · Burk v. Sproat
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Mr. Underhill states in his work on Wills (1st Ed.), §37: “ ‘The courts in determining whether an instrument disposing of real estate is a deed or a will are guided by the following considerations: If the instrument, whatever its form or the mode of its execution, passes a present interest which vests from the time of its execution, it will be a deed, though the possession and enjoyment of the estate granted in it do not accrue to the grantee until a future time. On the other hand, if the instrument, though it is in form a deed, does not convey any vested interest, right, or estate until the death of the person executing it, it will be regarded as testamentary and revokable. ’ “As to the admissibility of parol evidence he says the court— “ ‘May go outside of the writing to ascertain its character; not to supply an intention which cannot be found in it, but to ascertain with what intention the execution of the instrument was accompanied.’ 1 Underhill on Wills (1st Ed.), § 39.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ The words used cannot be said to apply simply to the enjoyment and possession of the property, but to the entire force and effect of the instrument, and are repugnant to the creation of a present interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moody v. Macomber
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.