Richards v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No trust concerning lands, except such as may arise by implication of law, shall be created unless in writing, signed by the party creating the same, or by his attorney thereto lawfully authorized in writing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 84 Ind. App. 319 - Betsner v. Betsner · HINDS, ETC. v. McNAIR

2. ““That gifts to charitable uses are highly favored and are to be construed by the most liberal rules that the nature of each case, as presented, will permit of, rather than that the gift should fail and charitable purpose of the donor be not accomplished is a settled rule of equity long recognized in this state. (Many authorities) . . . They are construed so as to give them effect if possible, and to carry out the general intention of the donor, when clearly manifest, even if the particular form and manner pointed out by him cannot be followed. . . . So the principles of construction applied to public charities have evolved the judicial cy pres doctrine and under its application in circumstances like those here, the courts are required to look beyond the institution, or trustee, particularly designated to administer the property given and the particular manner in which it is to be administered, to those for whose benefit it is to be administered. And if it appears that the latter were the real objects of the donor’s bounty, the trust will survive the failure of the particular trustee and the particular method of administering the trust if the court can secure a trustee to carry into effect as near as may be the dominant purpose of the donor. And so in many cases it has been held that, notwithstanding the corporation to which the gift was to go and by whom it was to be administered was not incorporated or would not or could not administer the trust, nevertheless, the trust did ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Emmert v. Union Trust Co.

3. “"A more liberal rule obtains as to gifts to charity, for trusts for charity are favored by equity, and are to be construed as valid when possible and are often upheld where private trusts fail.... Courts look with favor upon all such donations, and endeavor to carry them into effect, if it can be done consistently with the rules of law. If the words of a gift are ambiguous or contradictory, they are so construed as to support the charity if possible."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewis v. Burke