Scott v. Dawson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Where provisions of a will are in fact independent, and not for the car- - rying out of a common or general purpose, it is undoubtedly true that such 'as are contrary to law may be rejected without ⅛ any manner affecting valid provisions. The statement, however, that a valid provision will be sustained if no violence is done to the parts sustained by the rejection of the invalid provisions is too narrow a statement of the rule, and is in disregard of the cardinal principle that the testator’s wishes, as evidenced by the general scheme adopted, are to be taken into consideration, so that justice must be done if it can be. The rule as stated by appellees would seldom ever permit a valid provision to be set aside because other provisions were held invalid. It would be difficult to frame a will so that the rejection of the invalid provisions could seriously affect or do violence to valid provisions which might be sustained. The correct solution can only be arrived at by taking into consideration the general scheme and intention of the testator, and the effect that defeating a part of the provisions may have upon the general scheme of the testator, or on the beneficiaries or objects of his bounty.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arment v. Shriners Crippled Childrens Hospitals

2. ““ ‘If we find invalid portions to be in the instrument, do these invalid portions, when taken out of the instrument, so change the instrument as not to give effect to the general scheme and purpose of the testator in the disposition of his property? These questions we take in their order. In so doing we must and do recognize that it is the duty of courts to construe and not to make wills; that wills may be valid in part and invalid in part; that in determining what was the real scheme of disposition in the mind of the testator the valid and invalid portions must be alike considered, and this for -the reason that the presumption must be indulged that the testator in formulating his scheme of disposition thought all portions legal and valid; that if the elimination of the- invalid portions, if any there be, so changes the general scheme and purpose of the testator, as would* make the remaining portions amount to a new and different will, then the whole devise must .fail.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arment v. Shriners Crippled Childrens Hospitals

3. ““Bequests in a will, valid in themselves, must be rejected with the invalid ones, if the retention of them would defeat the testator’s general scheme adopted, or if manifest injustice would result to the beneficiaries.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arment v. Shriners Crippled Childrens Hospitals