Waters v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Ditton v. Hart (1911), Kuehne v. Malach (1918)
39 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 Dickie v. Carter · Harp v. Parr · Woodman v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank · Purdy v. Hall · Freeman v. Easly
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Freeman v. Easly, 117 Ill. 317, 322 ( 7 N. E. 656 ), we said: “ ‘It accords with common observation that in contests concerning wills, where the testator has made, or has seemingly made, an unequal or inequitable disposition of his property among those occupying the same relation to him by consanguinity or otherwise, there is a disposition in most minds to seek for a cause for holding the will invalid. The inclination in this direction, that is found to exist in the minds of most, if not all, jurors, cannot always be controlled by instructing them there is no law requiring a testator, nor is he bound, to devise his property equitably or in equal proportions among Ms heirs. Of course, the law is he may make such disposition of his property as he sees fit, and he may bestow his bounty where he wishes, either upon Ms heirs or others. While this is undoubtedly the law, the common mind is disinclined to recognize it, and jurors will too frequently seize upon any pretext for finding a verdict in accordance with what they regard as natural justice.' * * * “The fact that there is inequality in the distribution of the property of a testator or testatrix, cannot of itself have the effect of invalidating the will. Graham v. Deuterman, 206 Ill. 378 ( 69 N. E. 237 ). Moreover, where the testator or testatrix assigns a substantial and sufficient reason for such inequality, that reason must be accepted as true when there is no evidence in the record tending to disprove it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““She would frequently commence saying something, and then change it a little, and turn off into something else, and sometimes refer to it again as if she had not been talking about it.””
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.