Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Kan. 71 - Eikmeier v. Eikmeier

Eikmeier v. Eikmeier’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2018

22 state decisions

1101953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Berry v. Estate of Berry · Lewis v. Lewis · National Life Insurance v. Watson · Menke v. Duwe · Hough v. Fountain

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

  1. ““. . . Holding, as we do, that Fred’s will was the product of a contract and agreement, he is bound by its terms, even though the practical result thereof is that he is enjoined and prohibited from divesting himself of the tract during his lifetime. . . (p. 81.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Extrinsic evidence is admissible in connection with the instruments themselves to show that separate wills, which are mutual and reciprocal in their bequests and devises, were executed in pursuance of an agreement between the testators, notwithstanding the absence of recitals in thé wills designating or referring to such agreement. Such evidence may consist of writings, acts and declarations of the parties, testimony of other persons, and evidence of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. “The rule that parol evidence is never admissible to change or vary the terms and provisions of an unambiguous will does not render inadmissible extrinsic evidence that a will was executed pursuant to an agreement with another person for the execution of wills bequeathing and devising property to the survivor for life and providing that certain third persons should take on the death of the survivor.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the contract was in fact made, and the court found that it was, both parents performed the substance of the agreement by executing their wills. [The wife] further performed by dying, leaving her will in full force and effect; and [the husband] further performed by accepting the benefits under her will. Ordinarily, of course, full performance of a contract takes it out of the inhibitions of the statute.”
    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.