Mann v. Haines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A will may consist of any number of instruments. (Derr v. Derr, 123 Kan. 681, 687 , 256 Pac. 800 .) G. S. 1935, 22-241 [now 1943 Supp. 59-611], merely designates the various methods or manners in which a will may be revoked. One of them is by means of a subsequent will. Whether such later will in fact revokes a previous will depends upon its terms and provisions. In order for a will to work a revocation of a former will it must appear the later revoked the former by express terms or that its provisions are so far inconsistent with the former as to make it impossible for the two instruments to stand together. To the extent they cannot stand together the latter, of course, operates as a revocation of the former, but not otherwise. These principles are not only firmly established in this jurisdiction, but almost universally. (Caeman v. Van Harke, 33 Kan. 333 , 6 Pac. 620 ; Derr v. Derr, supra; Hill v. Kennedy, 134 Kan. 560 , 7 P. 2d 88 .) See lengthy annotation, 51 A. L. R. 652. In the absence of proof of subsequent revocation, the probated will must stand, as the legal presumption is it continued to exist until the death of the testator. (Caeman v. Van Harke, and Hill v. Kennedy, supra.) "Appellants, however, urge the evidence disclosed a second will and even though the second will had in fact been destroyed by the testatrix, such fact would not revive the former will as it was never republished. The contention is based upon a literal interpretation of G. S. 1935, 22-242 [now ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daily v. Moore

2. ““A will may consist of any number of instruments. (Derr v. Derr, 123 Kan. 681, 687 , 256 Pac. 800 .) G. S. 1935, 22-241, merely designates the various methods or manners in which a will may be revoked. One of them is by means of a subsequent will. Whether such later will in fact revokes a previous will depends upon its terms and provisions. In order for a will to work a revocation of a former will it must appear the latter revoked the former by express terms or that its provisions are so far inconsistent with the former as to make it impossible for the two instruments to stand together. To the extent they cannot stand together the latter, of course, operates as a revocation of the former, but not otherwise. These principles are not only firmly established in this jurisdiction, but almost universally. (Caeman v. Van Harke, 33 Kan. 333 , 6 Pac. 620 ; Derr v. Derr, supra; Hill v. Kennedy, 134 Kan. 560 , 7 P. 2d 88 .) See lengthy annotation, 51 A. L. R. 652. In the absence of proof of subsequent revocation, the probated will must stand, as the legal presumption is it continued to exist until the death of the testator. (Caeman v. Van Harke and Hill v. Kennedy, supra.)” (p. 992.)”

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

3. ““G. S. 1935, 22-241 [now G. S. 1943 Supp. 59-611], construed and held: (1) it designates the various methods or means by which a will may be revoked; (2) one of the methods provided is the execution of some other writing signed, attested and subscribed in the manner provided for the making of a will; (3) in order for such writing to revoke a will it is insufficient that it merely be executed as therein stated, but it is necessary that its terms and provisions be shown to revoke the will by express terms or by terms inconsistent therewith; (4) the burden of showing such revocation is upon the party asserting the revocation.” (Syl. If 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daily v. Moore