Zabel v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Niemann v. Vaughn Community Church (2005), Shannep v. Strong (1945)
2 federal appellate · 64 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 Markham v. Waterman · Lewis v. Lewis · Johnson v. Muller · McNutt v. McComb · Klingman v. Gilbert
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is settled in this state that the fundamental rule for construing a will is that the intention of the testator is to be gathered from the instrument as a whole, and that intention must prevail if it is consistent with the rules of law. (See Johnson v. Muller, 149 Kan. 128 , 86 P. 2d 569 , and cases cited.) Generally the will should be upheld where possible (Klingman v. Gilbert, 90 Kan. 545 , 135 Pac. 682 ); should be construed to avoid intestacy, if possible (Johnson v. White, 76 Kan. 159 , 90 Pac. 810 ), the supreme test being to determine the actual intention of the testator (Thornberry v. Fletcher, 91 Kan. 744 , 139 Pac. 391 ), although it has been said there is no occasion for employing rules of judicial construction where the intention is expressed clearly and unequivocally in the will (National Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 141 Kan. 903, 905 , 44 P. 2d 269 ). Many other cases may be found, but those cited are illustrative of the rules stated.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`A gift to a corporation or organization to enable it to carry out some or all of the purposes for which it was formed does not create a trust.' [citations omitted.] The rule above announced has had a general application. The reasons underlying the rule being that the purpose for which the property is left, being a part of the church and a department of the church itself that both the legal and the equitable title vest in the church, and this being true, the equitable title merges in the legal title. A person cannot be a trustee for himself. In addition to the rule above announced and the authorities supporting the same, we believe that the words, `to be used in the support and maintenance of Foreign Missions of said Church,' simply explain the testatrix' motive and purpose in making the said gift to the church, and in this sense are precatory words only, and not sufficient in themselves to create a trust." 238 N.W. at 132 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ ‘ In the instant case * * * each of the makers had property of substantial value, so that it may not be saicl that joinder of either party in making the bequests and devises may be disregarded as surplusage, as was done in Moore v. Samuelson, 107 Kan. 744 , 193 Pac. 369 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.