Banghart v. Vieweg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “As far back as Walston v. White, 5 Md. 297 (1853), Chief Judge Le Grand said for our predecessors: ‘The rule is this: where the language of the testator is plain and unambiguous such language must govern, and therefore extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that he [or she] meant something different from what his [or her] language imports; but any evidence is admissible, which, in its nature and effect, simply explains what the testator has written; ‘in other words, the question in expounding a will is not (- W)hat the testator meant? as distinguished from (-W)hat his [or her] words express(?) but simply (-W)hat is the meaning of his [or her] words? [[Image here]] In Hebden v. Keim, 196 Md. 45 , 75 A.2d 126 (1950), Judge Delaplaine said for the Court: ‘We recognize, of course, that the Court, in construing a will, is governed, not by what the Court may think the testator wanted to say, but by what his [or her] words actually meant, because his [or her] words were designed to express his [or her] intention. The expressions in a will must be interpreted in their ordinary and grammatical sense; and if the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot give it a different meaning in order to give effect to a mere conjecture as to the testator’s intention.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vito v. Grueff