229 Md. App. 353 - Grueff v. Vito’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Item TENTH of the Irrevocable Trust is a generally worded power. It allows the “Agreement” to “be revoked, altered or amended from time to time by an instrument in writing, signed by the holders of not less than seventy-five (75%) interest” in the trust, and delivered to the Trustee. Read broadly, the “alter and amend” language in Item TENTH would seem to give the holders of a 75% beneficial interest in the trust the power to make any change to the trust instrument, including, as Michael and Judith argue, to eliminate the beneficial interest of the 25% beneficiary and allocate it among the remaining beneficiaries. Item TENTH does not specify that that can be done, however, and therefore we must look to the entire trust instrument to determine whether such a reading of Item TENTH is consistent with [Vitoj’s intention as the Settlor of the trust.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vito v. Grueff

2. “In this opinion, we have reviewed the rulings that were made in the circumstances that they were made; specifically, with respect to the Revocable Trust, that [Vito] was alive. [Vitoj’s death rendered the Revocable Trust irrevocable. Whether, post [Vitoj’s death, Candace is in a position to bring claims against Mary and Brennan for alleged breach es of the duties they owed [Vito] as the Settlor is a question not before us. We note that any such claim would be governed by the Maryland Trust Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vito v. Grueff

3. “We read [the language regarding the effective date of the Maryland Trust Act] to mean that the Act was not controlling when the circuit court made its ruling concerning the trusts in this case. Clearly, if the Act had controlled when the Irrevocable Trust was amended to eliminate Candace’s beneficial interest, the amendment would not have survived.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vito v. Grueff