Asendorf v. (John F. Asendorf’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

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

1. ““Item 2. After the decease of my beloved wife, Maggie Asendorf, I give, devise and bequeath to my children all my property in the manner following. “Item 3. I give, devise and bequeath to my son Fred Asendorf, the Southeast Quarter (SE!4) of Section twenty-five (25), Township Twenty-seven (27) South, Range Four (4) West; but without power to sell, transfer of mortgage during his natural life. Should my son, Fred Asendorf have no children, then at the decease of said son and his wife,, said real estate (as above described) is to be equally divided, share and share alike, to my then living grandchildren. This does not in no way hinder my son from leasing or selling royalty oil and/or gas on the above described real estate. “Item 4. I give, devise and bequeath to my son, John F. Asendorf, the Northeast Quarter (NE%) of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-seven (27) South, Range Four (4) West; but without power to sell, transfer or mortgage said real estate during his natural life. This does not in no way hinder my son, from leasing or from selling oil and/or gas royalty on above real estate. “Item 5. I give, devise and bequeath to my daughters, Anna Wiese nee Asendorf, Clara Lorenz nee Asendorf and Marie Zerener nee Asendorf, share and share alike, all of section twenty-one (21) Township Twenty (20), Range Twenty-one (21) west, Ness County, Kansas. “Item 6. I give, devise and bequeath to my daughters, Anna Wiese nee Asendorf, Clara Lorenz nee Asendorf and Marie Zerener nee Asen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hasty v. Asendorf

2. ““. . . it has been definitely and finally determined that where a party has an adequate remedy for equitable relief in the probate court and that court is exercising its jurisdiction, such party may not invoke the jurisdiction of the district court. The rule announced simply determines the remedy and jurisdiction in the first instance. It denies a litigant no right based upon any theory, either legal or equitable, for if a claimant is dissatisfied with the ultimate outcome of his litigation in probate court the new code gives the district court on appeal the same general jurisdiction and power, as though the controversy had been directly commenced by action or proceeding therein and as though it would have had original jurisdiction of the action. (G. S. 1941 Supp., 59-2408 [now G. S. 1949, 59-2408].)” (p. 849.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shields v. Fink

3. ““The decree shall name the heirs, devisees, and legatees, describe the property, and state the proportion or part thereof to which each is entitled.” (G. S. 1947 Supp., 59-2249.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sharpe v. Sharpe