Yeager v. Yeager’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 51 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . any action whose plain and essential purpose is to get rid of a will — to effect a result contrary to the obvious intent of the testator — is an action ‘to contest’ the will and can only be brought in conformity with the statutes dealing with the contest of wills.” (p. 735.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First National Bank v. Dion · Matter of Estate of Campbell

2. ““In a few of the early decisions construing the code provision relating thereto appeared some confusion as to what constituted a demand against a decedent’s estate and what constituted opposition to probate of his will or a contest thereof. Such was not to be unexpected in the construction of a new enactment as comprehensive as the probate code. A careful analysis of the decisions, however, dispels any confusion that may have arisen from such decisions, and from later decisions has emerged a clearly defined distinction between a demand against a decedent’s estate and the contest of a decedent’s will or opposition to the probate thereof. The decisions fall into one of three classes. “First class. A will may be invalid and not entitled to probate for the reason that it is a forgery or has been revoked, that the testator did not possess the rights of majority, lacked mental capacity, or that the will was procured by fraud or undue influence. If, when a will is presented for probate, probate thereof is opposed on any of these or similar grounds and any of them is established in the probate court, or, in case of further contest of the will by appeal or otherwise, the ground or grounds therefore are established, the probate of the will should be denied. None of this constitutes a demand against the decedent’s estate within the meaning of the word ‘demand’. “Second class. Another situation arises when a will is validly executed with all the formalities prescribed by law by a person ”

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

3. ““The probate courts shall be courts of record, and, within their respective counties, shall have original jurisdiction: “(2) To grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration. “(3) To direct and control the official acts of executors and administrators, to settle their accounts, and to order the distribution of estates. “(5) To determine the heirs, devisees, and legatees of decedents. “(11) Such other jurisdiction as may be given them by statutes pertaining to particular subjects. “(12) And they shall have and exercise such equitable powers as may be necessary and proper fully to hear and determine any matter properly before such courts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Egnatic ex rel. Egnatic v. Wollard