Springer v. Schnack’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably In Re Estate of Sowder (1959), Parsons v. Smith, Trustee (1962)
30 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 Zabel v. Stewart · State v. Addis · Woman's Foreign Missionary Society of the M. E. Church v. Mitchell · Dyal v. Brunt · Johnson v. Muller
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 30 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 eases may be found, but those cited are illustrative of the rules stated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In construing a will the primary rule to be followed is the will itself, the language used in it, and all parts of it. Evidence tending to show the situation of the testator at the time the will was executed, the nature of his business, the extent of his property, and his family or relatives, may be received if helpful in identifying property or beneficiaries, or to clarify language used by the testator, but not to change the will. Evidence respecting matters which occurred after the will was executed, and particularly after it was probated and the estate administered under it, is incompetent as bearing upon the construction of the will.” (Syl. f 3.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smyth v. Thomas
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.