23 Ill. 2d 611 - O'CONNELL v. Gaffney’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 29 Ill. 2d 165 - In Re Estate of Breault (1963), 84 Ill. App. 3d 151 - Wielert v. Larson (1980)
24 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 Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Jackson · Slater Estate · 8 Ill. App. 2d 388 - Molner v. Silbert · 3 Ill. 2d 210 - Phelps v. Seeley
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the residue of an estate is disposed of in parts or fractions, it is frequently necessary to determine whether the testator intends the respective parts or fractions to constitute subdivisions of the entire residue, or to constitute preliminary and ultimate residues with the final part representing the “true” residue or, as it is sometimes called, the “residue of the residue.” An illustration of a share disposed of as a subdivision of the entire residue is one which divides the residue into two parts, with one part being given half to A and half to B, and the other part being given half to C and half to D. A typical case of a “true” residue is one in which the testator in disposing of his residuary estate, carves therefrom portions of the residue and disposes of those portions to designated persons or users and then passes that which remains to others. In such case the “true” residue is the final portion. In general, the test of whether a share or part is a subdivision of the entire residue, or constitutes one of several residues with the final division being the “true” or ultimate residue, turns on the language used by the testator in describing the final portion. If he gives “whatever remains” or “the balance after making particular gifts,” or other terminology indicative of an intent that the final division is a “catchall” for what may not have been disposed of by prior gifts, the disposition will normally be construed as one of preliminary and ultimate residues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In construing a will the pole star or guiding light is the intention of the testator as gathered from the language contained in the will and, if ambiguous, the circumstances surrounding the testator at the time of its execution.””
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.