Rust v. Rust

Decided November 3, 1948

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“we approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and find it unnecessary to write further.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rekdahl v. Long

Relies on Rust v. Rust

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1948-11-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Guilliams v. Koonsman (1955), Haile v. Holtzclaw (1967)

3 federal appellate · 29 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FOLLEY, Justice.

¶1This is a suit to construe the will of John Y. Rust, Jr., to determine whether the provisions thereof disposing of the residuary estate violate Art. I, Sec. 26 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann. St., condemning perpetuities. The trial court upheld all provisions of the will and rendered judgment accordingly. The Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas, in a very able opinion by Honorable James W. McClend-on, Chief Justice, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 211 S.W.2d 262. ITaving reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we have concluded that we erred in granting the application for a writ of error. We approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and find it unnecessary to write further on the question.

¶2The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirming that of the trial court, is affirmed.