Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 MINN 253 - Johnson v. Kroc

Johnson v. Kroc’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
9
states following
September 1984
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1984

13 state decisions

501923193019401950196019701980decided

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 Gaines v. Hennen · Estate of Patterson · McIntyre v. McIntyre · In re Ellis' Estate · Schultz v. . Schultz

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

  1. ““Then comes section 7280, consisting entirely of negative provisions, particularly the one preventing the establishment of the lost or destroyed will, ‘unless the same is proved to have been in existence at the time of -the testator’s death, or to have been fraudulently destroyed in his lifetime.’ Had the disjunctive phrase concerning fraudulent destruction ‘in his lifetime’ been omitted, there would be no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that existence in legal effect, as distinguished from the existence of the paper and writing, is all that the legislature intended to demand. The fraudulent destruction clause makes that result difficult. Either it negatives the legislature’s intention, so carefully expressed in section 7256, to prevent revocation by accidental loss or destruction, or it must be considered as surplusage. A holding making that clause surplusage is less objectionable, however, than one which will read into another section of the statute language which is not there and produce an effect not only beyond, but opposed to, the legislative intention there expressed.” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.