Roach v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 1993 · most notably Davis v. Lewis & Lewis (1954), Taylor v. Brown (1953)
4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
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 McGee v. Yazoo M. v. R. Co. · Thornton v. Ellington · Jordan v. Filmore · Himel v. Connely · Lejeune v. Lejeune
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any disposal of property, whether inter vivos or mortis causa, exceeding the quantum of which a person may legally dispose to the prejudice of the forced heirs, is not null, but only reducible to that quantum.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In refusing to decree the last will and testament of the testatrix null and void, the lower court recognized the general principles of law as they are now established in this state, to the effect that, when a testator disposes of his entire estate to the prejudice of a forced heir, he has done nothing except to make a disposition of property mortis causa affecting the quantum he may legally dispose of to the prejudice of such forced heir, and that such a bequest does not make the will null and void but merely subjects such donation mortis causa to an action by the forced heir for the reduction thereof and for the recovery of his legitime * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The disposable quantum may be given in whole or in part, by an act inter vivos or mortis causa, to one or more of the disposer's children or successible descendants, to the prejudice of his other children or successible descendants, without its being liable to be brought into the succession by the donee or legatee, provided it be expressly declared by the donor that this disposition is intended to be over and above the legitimate portion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.