Witty v. . Witty’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1985
17 state decisions
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 Whall v. Converse · Straus v. Rost · Wool v. Fleetwood. · Bates v. Spooner · Bowen v. Hackney.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Thus it has been held that contingent and not vested remainders were created where the testator, in making an ulterior disposition of property after a particular life estate, uses such expressions as ‘to such of my sons' as may be living at their mother’s death,’ or ‘surviving at her death,’ or ‘to the representatives of such as may have died before her death,’ showing clearly that not only the enjoyment of the remainder, but also the right to take it was intended to be postponed until after the expiration of the preceding life estate. Whitesides v. Cooper, 115 N.C. 570 ; Bowen v. Hackney, 136 N.C. 187 ; Freeman v. Freeman, 141 N.C. 97 ; James v. Hooker, 172 N.C. 780 ; Jenkins v. Lambeth, 172 N.C. 466 ; Thompson v. Humphrey, 179 N.C. 44 ; In re Kenyan, 17 R.I. 149.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kale v. Forrest““ ‘As a general rule, the death of the testator is the time at which the members of a class are to be ascertained in case of a gift to the testator’s heirs, next of kin, or other relatives, unless the context of the will indicates a clear intention that the property shall go to the heirs, next of kin, or other relatives at a different time, such as at the time of distribution, or at the death of the first taker, or at the date of the execution of the will. . . . Where the gift is to the heirs or next of kin of another than the testator, it ordinarily refers to the death of such other, unless the context of the will manifests that the class shall be determined at a different time, such as the time of distribution.’ ” Witty v. Witty, 184 N.C. 375, 379 , 114 S.E. 482, 484 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.