Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 KAN 395 - Lampe v. Wille

Lampe v. Wille’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
states following
July 1998
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Maltby v. Sumner (1950), Garvey Center, Inc. v. Food Specialties, Inc. (1974)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 state decisions

260194719501960197019801990decided

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 Shannep v. Strong · Reed v. Hazleton · Fuller v. Williams · Lowry v. Lowry · Derr v. Derr

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

  1. ““Except as provided in section 46 [59-610], no will in writing shall be revoked or altered otherwise than by some other will in writing; or by some other writing of the testator declaring such revocation or alteration and executed with the same formalities with which the will itself was required by law to be executed; or unless such will be burnt, tom, canceled, obliterated or destroyed, with the intent and for the purpose of revoking the same, by the testator himself or by another person in his presence by his direction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““What an instrument is intended to accomplish must be gathered from its four corners and not from single words, isolated phrases or even sentences. Facts and circumstances surrounding its execution become competent only in the event the instrument is ambiguous on its face and requires aid to clarify its intent.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) (Our italics.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““While it is indispensable to the validity of a will that a testator should know its contents at the time of execution, knowledge will ordinarily be presumed from the execution of the instrument. The presumption, however, is only a prima facie one and may be rebutted.” (Syl. IT 8.)”
    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.