Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 KAN 377 - Watts v. McKay

Watts v. McKay’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2008

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

501945195019601970198019902000decided

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 Mydland v. Ross · Sherman v. Havens · Watts v. Watts · Watts v. Watts · Bierer v. Bierer

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

  1. “Where by the terms of the trust' a beneficiary is entitled only to so much of the income or principal as the trustee in his uncontrolled discretion shall see fit to give him, he cannot compel the trustee to pay to him or to apply for his use any part of the trust property. In such a case, an assignee of the interest of the beneficiary cannot compel the trustee to pay any part of the trust property, nor can creditors of the beneficiary reach any part of the trust property. This is true even in jurisdictions where spendthrift trusts are not permitted. If the beneficiary himself cannot compel the trustee to pay over any part of the trust fund, his assignee and his creditors are in no better position. It is the character of the beneficiary’s interest, rather than the settlor’s intention to improve a restraint on its alienation, which prevents its being reached. (Italics supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The beneficiary has no right, as a matter of law, to require the trustee to turn over to him the principal of the estate or any part of it. . . . “. . . [The beneficiary] does not have such an interest in the corpus of the trust estate in the hands of the trustee as can be reached to satisfy the judgment for alimony and attorney’s fees, and . . . the trustee did not abuse his discretion in refusing to pay such judgment.” 160 Kan. at 385 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.