Calkin v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably In Re Estate of Hauck (1950), In Re Estate of Works (1950)
2 district · 24 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 Zabel v. Stewart · Shannep v. Strong · Selzer v. Selzer · Sipes v. Pessemier · Jones v. Petrie
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is axiomatic that in the construction of wills the testator’s intent is the all-important consideration and that his intention must prevail if not contrary to settled rules of law or in violation of public policy. (Zabel v. Sewart, 153 Kan. 272 , 109 P. 2d 177 ; Jones v. Petrie, 156 Kan. 241 , 132 P. 2d 396 ; Shannep v. Strong, 160 Kan. 206, 214 , 160 P. 2d 683 .) An equally well-established principle of construction is that in order to ascertain the testator’s actual intent the instrument should be considered as a whole. (Zabel v. Stewart, supra; Selzer v. Selzer, 146 Kan. 273 , 69 P. 2d 708 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marsh v. Marsh
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.