Clutter v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 56 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general rule in this state is that contracts, made either before or after marriage, the purpose of which is to fix property rights between a husband and wife, are to be liberally interpreted to carry out the intentions of the makers, and to uphold such contracts where they are fairly and understanding^ made, are just and equitable in, their provisions and are not obtained by fraud or overreaching. “Where it appears that an antenuptial contract was understandingly made and freely executed, and where there is an absence of anything showing fraud or deceit, the mere fact the intended husband did not disclose in detail to the intended wife the nature, extent and value of his property will not, of itself, invalidate the contract or raise a presumption of fraudulent concealment, and if from a consideration of all the facts concerning the situation of the parties, such as their respective ages, family conditions, property rights, etc., at the time the contract was made the trial court concludes the intended wife was not overreached, the contract should be sustained.” (Syl. ff 1, 2.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of West

2. ““. . . Ademption is the term used to describe the act by which a specific legacy has become inoperative by the withdrawal or disappearance of the subject matter from the testator’s estate in his lifetime, and where the testator sells or disposes of real or personal property which is the subject matter of a specific legacy, the sale or disposal, without more, results in an ademption and the legatee takes nothing of it under the will. See 69 C. J. 998, 1007. The following cases recognize the rule and its effect: Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 112 Kan. 314 , 211 Pac. 146 ; Willoughby v. Watson, 114 Kan. 82 , 216 Pac. 1095 ; Taylor v. Hull, 121 Kan. 102 , 245 Pac. 1026 ; Warren v. Phebus, 132 Kan. 816 , 297 Pac. 657 ; Myers v. Noble, 141 Kan. 432, 41 P. 2d 1021 ; and other cases to the same effect might be cited. . . .” (pp. 393, 394.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Snyder

3. ““Parties contemplating marriage may contract with each other concerning their property rights and such contracts, when fairly, equitably and intelligently made, will be upheld and liberally interpreted to carry out the intentions of the parties to them.” (syl. 1.) “A claim asserted by one of the parties to an antenuptial contract against the estate of the other party, which if allowed would reduce the amount of assets which would otherwise be distributed to his heirs or legatees, constitutes a demand against the estate of the deceased party.” (syl. 5.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Sterba