Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 Kan. 40 - Jackson v. Lee

Jackson v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

4 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2019

4 district · 12 state decisions

40196419701980199020002010decided

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 Cross v. O'Cavanagh · Katz Investment Co. v. Lynch · Busenbark v. Busenbark · Grossenbacher v. Spring · Scudder's executors v. Vanarsdale

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.

  1. “"[A]n `heir' or `heir at law' is simply the person designated by the statute who succeeds to the estate of a deceased person, and the statute may make anybody an heir."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'one who takes by intestate succession under the Kansas statutes.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"... the general rule appears to be that a devise or bequest to `heirs,' whether it be the testator's heirs or the heirs of a third person, designates not only who are to take, but also the portions in which they are to take. The law will presume an intention that the heirs take according to the law of descent and distribution unless there is language in the will indicating a contrary intention."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.