Miller v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Now let us examine our case to see if there are inconsistencies between the rights of the widow under the law and what she is given under the will of her husband. Under the law she has a right to use and occupy 200 acres of the 233 acres of the separate property of testator as her homestead so long as she shall live, and without interference on the part of the heirs at law of the testator. Under the will she receives a fee simple title to an undivided one-eighth of the whole 233 acres, and each of testator’s seven children also receive a fee simple title to an undivided one-eighth of said land. A mere statement of these two rights show their inconsistency. Under the law the widow is entitled to all the exempt personal property to be used and disposed of by her as may be necessary for her support and maintenance. She will not have to account for any part of this allowance unless the estate, upon final settlement, should be solvent. Arts. 3493 and 3494, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats. Under the will the widow and the seven children of testator each receive ‘after the payment of all my just debts * * * ’ an undivided one-r eighth ‘share and share alike in the remainder of all the property I may own or be interested in at the time of my death, in fee simple, to manage, sell, or dispose of as they may wish or see proper.’ Clearly there is also an inconsistency here between the rights of the widow under the law and the term's of the will. “(3) Therefore, it is beyond question that she i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lieber v. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas · Oelkers v. Clemens

2. ““An election is required of a devisee or legatee under a will. “ ‘Where the provisions of the will seek to impose a responsibility upon or curtail a property right of one who is named as a devisee or legatee, the latter is in the necessity of making an election, either to take the gift upon the conditions imposed by the testator or to renounce the devise or bequest and preserve the rights which are required thereby to . be surrendered. “The principle of election is that he who accepts a benefit under a will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument so far as it concerns him, conforming to its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.” * * * * ' “* * * ‘In 69 c: J., § 2330, pp. 1089, 1090, an election under a will is defined- in the following language: “Election is the obligation imposed upon a party to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases were there is a clear intention of the person from whom he derives, one that he should not enjoy both, the principle being that one shall not take any beneficial interest under a will, and at the same time set up any right or claim of his own, even if legal and well founded, which would defeat or in any way prevent the full effect and operation of every part of the will. The principle underlying the doctrine of election is not statutory, but is purely equitable, and was originally derived from the civil law, * * ’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lieber v. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas · Harkey v. Lackey

3. “will be charged against the full community estate, and her half (of the community estate) will accordingly bear its portion of such charge”). . In this case, Nielsen’s estate consisted solely of community property. The entire community estate was valued at $3,151,141.01, with Nielsen’s one-half community estate valued at $1,575,570.01. . Although not applicable in this case, the family allowance is also available for the decedent’s minor children and incapacitated adult children. Id. . Class 1 claims include funeral expenses and the reasonable expenses of the decedent’s last illness,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of Nielsen