Pfaff, Administratrix v. Clements’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. “(2) Likewise, it is not essential that the strict mutuality of obligation or the strict legal sufficiency of consideration — as required in ordinary contracts — be present in family settlements. It is sufficient that the members of the family want to settle the estate: one person may receive more or less than the law allows; one person may surrender property and receive no quid pro quo. Thus, in Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270 , there was claimed that one — Watkins — had no interest in the property sufficient to support a family settlement; but in disposing of that contention, Mr. Justice EAKIN said: “We cannot go behind the agreement to ascertain the interest of Watkins. It is a matter of no consequence whether he had courtesy [sic] or had nothing. . . . The agreement stands on the ground of family settlements,. . . They are supposed to be the result of mutual good will, and imply a disposition to concession for the purpose, regardless of strict legal rights; always excepting cases of fraud, of which nothing, in this case, appears.” It is true that in some of our cases (a recent such case is Mills v. Alexander, 206 Ark. 754 , 177 S.W.2d 406 ), we have mentioned the “consideration” or benefit received by the person who later sought to question the family settlement; but in each such case the consideration was discussed to demonstrate that there had been no fraud, imposition or overreaching practiced against the complaining party. In the case at bar there is no claim that there h”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bradley v. Teague · 2011 Ark. App. 47 - Machen v. Machen

2. ““It is not necessary that there be a previous dispute or controversy between the members of the family before a valid family settlement may be made. Thus, in Martin v. Martin, supra, there wa.s no dispute at the time of the conveyance or will in question, yet the agreement was called a ‘family settlement’.” [Citing cases]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. Smith · Harris v. Harris