Austin v. Pepperman’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably Kirkland v. Kirkland (1967), Brittain v. Ingram (1968)
28 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 Alexander Finlay v. William King's Lessee · Peck v. Drennan · Woods v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. · Smith v. Smith · C. W. Zimmerman Mnfg. Co. v. Daffin
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[C]onditions subsequent are not favored in law, and must be strictly construed, because they tend to destroy estates and a vigorous exaction of them is a species of summum jus, and in many cases hardly reconcilable with conscience. If it is doubtful whether a clause in a deed imports a condition or a covenant, the latter construction will be adopted. If the meaning is doubtful as to whether a clause in a will is a condition or a covenant, it will be construed as a covenant.” (Citations omitted, emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where an estate or interest is given in one clause of a will in clear and decisive terms, the interest cannot be taken away or diminished by raising a doubt upon the extent and meaning of a subsequent clause, nor by inference therefrom, nor by any subsequent words that are not as clear and decisive as the words of the clause giving the interest or estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nevin v. Nevin
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.