Kramer v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
November 1964
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Coppedge v. Coppedge · Prather v. Watson's · Wooley v. Hays · Brandeis v. Brandeis · Peoples Nat. Bank, Greenville v. Harrison
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.
““The more acceptable and better reasoned view is that if property is given or devised to heirs of the testator without naming them, that this requires a reference to the statutes of descent and distribution to determine who will take by virtue of the provisions of the will; that the beneficiaries take in the proportion prescribed by the statute; and that if the beneficiaries are not of equal degree they will take per stirpes in the absence of a declaration in the will to the contrary. The basis of this is that the testator having made a resort to the statutes necessary to ascertain who are his beneficiaries intended that it should also govern the proportion which they should take unless he expressed in the will a different intention. . . .” (pp. 409, 410.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. Lee““ ‘In searching for the intention of the testator the court must examine the entire will, consider all its provisions, give words their generally accepted literal and grammatical meaning, and indulge the presumption that the testator understood the meaning of the words used. “ ‘The intention of the testator as determined from the will must be given effect if it is not inconsistent with any rule of law.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Attebery v. Prentice
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.