Spinks v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “essential characteristic of a will is that it operates only upon and by reason of the death of the maker.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D'Ambrosio v. Wolf · Shakeel v. Khanam

2. ““ ‘The rule of construction in determining whether an instrument is a will or contract is, that if it passes a present interest, it is a deed or contract; but if it does not pass an interest or right until the death of the maker, it is a testamentary paper.’ 89 Am. St. Rep. 488 . “ ‘In determining the question whether an instrument is a will or a contract, the time when the property rights under the instrument attach is the true test and not the time of performance. # * * Where the instrument contains no words that create the relation of debtor and creditor in the lifetime of the parties thereto, but the words employed simply import a posthumous disposition of a part of the estate of the maker of the instrument, it is testamentary in character and will be given effect as a will if executed with the formalities required by the statute.’ Thompson on Wills, Second Edition, Sec. 14, p. 23. “ ‘In general the test of testamentary character is . . . does the paper show an intention to presently create an interest in another though enjoyment is postponed, or does it create no such interest but merely direct what shall be done after the maker’s death, being entirely ambulatory until that time? This is frequently a fine and difficult distinction to draw, but it is often vital to the success of the instrument. . . .’ Atkinson on Wills, Sec. 64, p. 151.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Short v. AH STILL INVESTMENT CORPORATION

3. “fundamentally and intrinsically ... bears and has all the necessary qualities of a will and falls short of full recognition as such, not because of inherent insufficiency, but only due to lack of formal execution. ... They call it an agreement, but its name does not necessarily make it such. It is simply what it appears to be, i.e., an ambulatory, dispository, reciprocal testamentary undertaking between two people to pass, upon the death of the maker first to die, his or her property to the survivor____It has been finally executed by the parties ... and is, in and of itself, supposed to pass property only upon death.... Being a will in substance, but lacking in the necessaiy formalities of execution, no property can pass thereunder as a will.... If it had been formally and properly executed, it would have been the will of each, to be probated upon the death of each, and any property that passed thereunder would have passed by virtue of the testamentary character of the. instrument.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shakeel v. Khanam