Axe v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 41 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Axe , the plaintiff, the only child of her father, brought several actions against her father’s second wife after her father’s death. One action was to contest the will of her father on grounds of fraud and undue influence of the defendant. Another action was to recover damages from the defendant for her malicious. interference with plaintiff’s alleged right of inheritance in having induced the will by fraud and undue influence. The Kansas Supreme Court was directly confronted with the issue of whether Kansas recognized the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance. After listing the conflicting cases on the question, the court specifically declined to decide the issue. However, the Court went on to hold that, under the circumstances of the case, plaintiffs remedy lay in her action to contest the will and not in an action for damages. The court noted that the action to contest the will had been timely brought and presented the same issues as to fraud and undue influence as those of the damage action and that if the damage action was successful the amount recovered would be simply the value of the property which plaintiff would obtain in case of a successful contest of the will. It seems implicit in the court’s ruling that under other circumstances an action for damages might lie. Distinguishing its case from situations where such an action might be allowed, the Court stated: It is highly important to bear in mind that the instant action is not one to recover dam”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 593 F. Supp. 250 - Maxwell v. SOUTHWEST NAT. BANK, WICHITA, KAN.

2. ““Counsel for plaintiff, however, make the contention that this action is not one to contest the will—that such a contest would only be concerned with its formalities, the capacity of the testators, and possible questions of undue influence, with none of which matters plaintiff is concerned. However, the statute which authorizes the contest of a will does not confine the grounds of such contest within such narrow limits. Any cause of action which a pleader can set down on paper which, if established, would necessarily render a will nugatory, is a contest of the will and must be brought within the time allowed by the statute above quoted. All this is stare decisis in this jurisdiction, since it was authoritatively and deliberately so declared in the thoroughly contested case of Rishel v. McPherson County, 122 Kan. 741 , 253 Pac. 586 ; id. 123 Kan. 414 , 255 Pac. 979 ; id. 124 Kan. 31 , 257 Pac. 939 .” (p. 57.)”

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

3. “We have repeatedly ruled that an action which in effect contests the will is a will contest action and must be brought as such under the contest statute or not at all.”

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