Keating v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

cited by 55 later decisions

states following

January 1969

most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 1969 · most notably 29 Cal. 2d 423 - Loring v. Town of Kingsley (1946), Shattuck v. Shattuck (1948)

55 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 In Re the Estate of Fair · Goad v. Montgomery · Crew v. Pratt · Estate of Dunphy v. Dunphy · More v. More

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

““The will attempted to create a trust which, considered by itself, was no doubt invalid under the rule declared in .Estate of Fair, 132 Cal. 523 [ 84 Am.St.Rep. 70 , 60 P. 442, 64 P. 1000 ]. The validity of the trust is, however, no longer open to question'. The decree of the superior court distributing the residue of the estate to trustees upon certain trusts is a conclusive adjudication of the validity of the disposition made by the testator. (Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 139 [51 P. 38]; Goldtree v. Allison, 119 Cal. 344 [ 51 P. 561 ].) “And it is equally conclusive as an ascertainment and adjudication of the terms of the trust, and of the rights of all parties claiming any legal or equitable interest under the will. (Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552 [63 Am.St. Rep. 145, 51 P. 681 ]; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 [ 56 P. 603 ]; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 [ 65 P. 1044 ].) The decree supersedes the will and prevails ‘over any provision therein which may be thought inconsistent with the decree. ’ (Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552 [ 63 Am.St.Rep. 145 , 51 P. 681 ].) In determining the rights of the widow, we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 71 Cal. App. 2d 403 - Eggert v. American Trust Co. · 69 Cal. App. 2d 749 - Estate of White
“And that (the Decree of Distribution) is equally conclusive as an ascertainment and adjudication of the terms of the trust and of the rights of all parties claiming any legal or equitable interest under the will.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Estate of Bodger · Estate of Easter
“then to go as follows, to wit: One third thereof to Isabell Keating, the widow ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 146 Cal. App. 2d 780 - Estate of Newman

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.