Hoermann v. Hoermann’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1975
1 federal appellate · 15 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 In Re the Accounting of Evans · Will of Johnson · Patterson v. Fuller · Sandford v. Stagg · Bitney v. Odegard
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This does not mean that the context of the will may not disclose that words which are presumably words of limitation were in fact intended to create a substituted bequest. For example, in Re Evans, supra, [ 234 N.Y. 42 , 136 N.E. 233 ] the fact that the gift was of personalty and that the words `or heirs' rather than `and heirs' were used was considered, together with other circumstances, as sufficient to repel the inference that the words were intended to limit the bequest and warrant the conclusion that they were words of substitution."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . Presumptively, the words ‘unto him and his heirs and assigns forever’are words of limitation. . . . [E]ven in the case of gifts of personal property, the phrase is presumed to have been used to limit the estate rather than to provide a substitutionary gift. Will of Johnson, 199 Wis. 154, 160 , 225 N. W. 818 ; Will of Peters, 223 Wis. 411 , 270 N. W. 921 . . . . “This does not mean that the context of the will may not disclose that words which are presumably words of limitation were in fact intended to create a substituted bequest. . . . [W]e discover nothing in the will or in the circumstances to support the conclusion that these are words of substitution. . . .” Estate of Hoermann, supra, pages 184,135.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.