Moody v. Macomber’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1942
5 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 Lautenshlager v. Lautenshlager · Clay v. Layton · Ferris v. Neville · Bigley v. Souvey · Shaw v. Hill
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘This deed is not to become operative until the death of the grantor, named herein.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Gardner on Wills (1st Ed.), at page 24, states the rule as follows: “The essential difference between a deed and a will is that a deed must pass a present interest in the property, although the right to possession and, enjoyment may not accrue until some future time,' while an instrument, which passes no interest until after the maker’s death, is a will. * * * Regard must be had to the intention of the maker viewed in the light of the language of the instrument, and the circumstances surrounding the parties and attendant upon its execution’ — citing cases.””
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.