Swanson v. Swanson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crossley v. Leslie · Armstrong v. Merts · Fields v. Lewis · Padgett v. Hatton · Witcher v. Witcher
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.
“To distinguish between vested remainders and contingent remainders, a court must determine whether at the time the instrument takes effect there is “a person who in his own right, or as a part of his estate, would take all of this property if (the life estate) ended now.” [Cits.] If there is such a person, then the remainder is vested subject to partial or complete defeasance. [Cits.] If no such person is identifiable, then the remainder is subject to a condition precedent and is a contingent remainder. [Cit.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Folsom v. Rowell
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.