Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 ARK 222 - Tullis v. Minchew

Tullis v. Minchew’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1981
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on McDonald v. Shaw · Duensing v. Duensing

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

  1. “It is an elementary rule of construction that a bequest or devise will not fail because of a mere inaccuracy in the designation of the beneficiary, where the meaning of the testator can be gathered with reasonable certainty from the instrument itself, or where the identity of the object of his bounty can be shown by extrinsic evidence and such evidence is always admissible for the purpose of identifying the beneficiary, where there is uncertainty or ambiguity in the designation. This rule applies to corporations as well as to those taking for their own benefit. McDonald, at 240.”
    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.