Wright v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

112 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the will does not dispose of property of the beneficiary, the latter is not put to an election, but may simply take what the will gives and also take his or her own community half interest. On the other hand, if the will disposes of property of the beneficiary and at the same time gives the latter some ‘benefit’, however small, the beneficiary cannot take the benefit under the will without accepting also the disposition it makes of his or her own property. In the latter case, where a community interest is involved, the beneficiary must accordingly elect between taking under the willy with consequent loss as well as benefit, and, on the other hand, repudiating the will and taking only his or her community half interest independently of the will. In determining whether the will disposes of property of the beneficiary, the rule is, of course, that it does not so dispose unless it is ‘open to no other construction.’ Avery v. Johnson, 108 Tex. 294 , 192 S.W. 542, 544 . See also Rogers v. Trevathan, 67 Tex. 406 , 3 S.W. 569 ; Smith v. Butler, supra [ 85 Tex. 126 , 19 S.W. 1083 ]; Schelb v. Sparenberg, 133 Tex. 17 , 124 S.W.2d 322 ; Baldwin v. Baldwin, 134 Tex. 428 , 135 S.W.2d 92 ; Sailer v. Furche, Tex.Com.App., 22 S.W.2d 1065 ; Farmer v. Zinn, Tex.Com.App., 276 S.W. 191 . And for construction purposes, the will in its entirety must be looked into. Sailer v. Furche, supra; Cheatham v. Mann, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 264 , writ of error refused. If the will is open to a differen”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Falsetti v. Indiana Oil Purchasing Co. · Ing v. Cannon

2. ““True, where there is an appeal from that part of the court’s order which grants summary judgment, it might be convenient to allow the appellate court to review also the part refusing summary judgment and itself to render summary judgment on the latter issue, if it concludes that the trial court ought to have done so. At the same time, since such a practice would be by way of exception to a general rule, any benefits might well be outweighed by the resultant confusion.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tobin v. Garcia · Ackermann v. Vordenbaum

3. ““The proper test, therefore, is whether the alleged benefits granted her by the will are or are not something of which she could legally be deprived without her consent. If they are, there is a benefit, which she can accept only by accepting also the burdens; if they are not there is no benefit and thus no case of election. Accordingly, a bequest to the respondent of the testator’s half of all or any part of the community estate is a benefit to her, although, absent a will, she would have inherited it and everything else.””

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