Elmore v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Coppedge v. Coppedge (1951), Woodard v. Clark (1951)
66 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 Lide v. Mears · Lyford v. Laconia · Chas. W. Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford · Smyth v. . McKissick · Trust Co. v. . Watkins
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In construing a will, the court seeks to ascertain and carry into effect the expressed intention of the testator, i.e., the intention which the will itself, either explicitly or implicitly, declares. * * * Where the language employed by the testator is plain and its import is obvious, the judicial chore is light work; for in such event, the words of the testator must be taken to mean exactly what they say. * * * But where the language in the will does not clearly express the testator’s purpose, or when his intention is obscure because of the use of inconsistent clauses or words, the court finds itself confronted by a perplexing task. In such case,' the court calls to its aid more or less' arbitrary canons or rules of testamentary construction designed by the law to resolve any doubts in the language;, tof the'testator in favor of interpretations which the law deems desirable. 57 Am. Jur., Wills, §§ 1120, 1124; Am. Law Inst. Restatement, Property, Vol. 3, § 243.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]s an incident of this rule, courts prefer to construe doubtful conditions as subsequent rather than precedent because such construction gives the devisee a vested estate subject to be divested instead of deferring the vesting.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Merger is the absorption of a lesser estate by a greater estate, and takes place when two distinct estates of greater and lesser rank meet in the same person or class of persons at the same time without any intermediate estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tarlton v. Stidham
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.