Shelton v. King’s Empirical Analysis
229 U.S. 90 · 1913
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 14 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn (2008), Danti v. Lewis (1962)
46 federal appellate · 14 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McArthur v. Scott · Nichols Assignee v. Eaton et al. · Hyde v. Woods · Claflin v. Claflin
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine, that the owner of property, in the free exercise of Ms will in disposing of it, cannot so dispose of it, hut that the objeet of Ms bounty, who parts with nothing in return, must hold it subject to the debts due his creditors, though that may soon deprive him of all the benefit sought to be conferred by the testator’s affection or generosity, is one which we are not prepared to announce as the doctrine of this court. * * * “Nor do we see any reason, in the recognized nature and tenure of property and its transfer by will, why a testator who gives, who gives without any pecuniary return, who gets nothing of. property value from the donee, ma.y not attach to that gift the incident of continued use, of.uninterrupted benefit of the gift, during the life of the donee. Why a parent, or one who loves another, and wishes to use his own property in securing the objeet of his affection, as far as property can do it, from the ills of life, the vicissitudes of fortune, and oven, Ms own improvidence, or incapacity for self-protection, should not be permitted to do so, is not readily perceived.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Trustees having the power to exercise discretion will not be interfered with so long as they are acting bona fides. To do so would be to substitute the discretion of the court for that of the trustees.” Shelton v. King, 229 U.S. 90 , 33 S.Ct. 686, 687 , 57 L.Ed. 1086 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no higher duty which rests upon a court than to carry out the intentions of a testator when the provision is not repugnant to settled principles of public policy and is otherwise valid.”
3 later decisions 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.