Janes v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" ‘If two parties verbally agree, each in consideration of the other doing likewise, to make their wills disposing of their properties in a specified manner and one dies leaving a will which complies with the contract, and the survivor accepts benefits under the will, noncompliance with the agreement by the survivor would operate as a fraud which equity will prevent, and in such a case the acts done are a sufficient part performance to take the case out of the statute of frauds or to estop the survivor to plead the statute.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kronenberger v. Beke · Kirk v. Beard

2. ““The principal contention for reversal is that the proof is insufficient to establish a valid contract to make reciprocal wills. In considering this contention we deem it appropriate to notice certain general principles applicable to a proper solution of the issues. We have repeatedly held that a valid oral contract to devise or convey real estate may be made, which is enforceable in equity. Williams v. Williams, 128 Ark. 1 , 193 S. W. 82 ; Speck v. Dodson, 178 Ark. 549 , 11 S. W. 2d 456 . We have also held that the proof to establish such contract must be clear and convincing. Crews v. Crews, 212 Ark. 734 , 207 S. W. 2d 606 . The same degree of proof is required to establish a contract for the execution of wills containing reciprocal bequests of a life estate to the surviving testator with remainder to third persons designated by the contract. 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 728. “ It is also well settled that a will is generally ambulatory until the death of the testator, and that mutual or reciprocal wills, may be revoked at pleasure unless founded on, or embodying, a binding contract. 69 C. J. Wills, Sec. 2719. . . . “The fact that the parties have concurrently executed separate wills, reciprocal in terms, is not sufficient, of itself, to show that the parties had entered into a contract to make such wills; but the terms of such wills afford some evidence of the contractual relation and, when read in connection with other evidence which tends to show the execution of the contrac”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barksdale v. Carr

3. “The general rule is that a contract for reciprocal wills need not be expressed, but may arise by implication from circumstances which make it clear that the parties had such wills in mind, that they intended to carry out their plans for testamentary disposition thereby, and that each acquiesced in the understanding of the other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morris v. Cullipher