Egbert v. Egbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It may be conceded that persons who are the beneficiaries in a will have such an interest as entitles them to contest another alleged will of the same testator which destroys or reduces their share in his estate. Re Langley, 140 Cal. 126 , 73 Pac. 824 ; Buckingham’s Appeal, 57 Conn. 544 ; Churchill v. Neal, 142 Gra. 352, 82 S. E. 1065 ; McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55 , 41 N. E. 336; Crowley v. Farley, 129 Minn. 460 , 152 N. W. 872 ; Turhune v. Brookfield, 1 Redg. (N. Y.) 220; Merrill v. Rolston, 5 Redf. (N. Y.) 220; Murphy v. Murphy, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1460 , 65 S. W. 165 . Without attempting to lay down any rule as to what the contestant should allege with respect to a prior will, it is sufficient to say that no contest based on a former will can be maintained unless the former will is in existence. Here, the contestant merely alleged the execution of the prior will making her sole devisee for life of the entire estate of the testator, and the fact that the testator safely kept and preserved it. How long he kept it, is not alleged. For aught that appears in the statement or petition, the alleged former will may have been destroyed or revoked many years before the death of the testator. We therefore conclude that the allegations of the statement or petition with respect to the former will were not sufficient to show the widow’s right to contest the will in question.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Carlson's Estate · Gibson v. Crawford