Wilbert v. Wilbert’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1988
12 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 John Smith v. Robert Bell · Wilson v. Snow · Oglesby v. Turner · Alfred Hiller Co. v. Hotel Grunewald Co. · Wilson v. Hoffman
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is rather the functions to be performed by the appointee in the will than the designated name of such appointee that determines his true fiduciary character.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In other words, a testator, looking to the welfare of his children, after his death, is no longer limited by the provision of article 1710 of the Civil Code, prohibiting charges or conditions from being imposed by him on the legitimate portion of forced heirs, if he should see fit to designate `trustees' in his last will and testament for the protection of his heirs, and, to that end, should direct a prudent administration, in safe hands, of his estate for their benefit."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"We are of the opinion that the intention of the testator to create a trust is manifested, not only by the language of the will, but by the state of facts shown to exist upon its face at the date of the will. The language of the will is not consistent with any other purpose. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oroszy v. Burkard
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.