29 App. D.C. 300 - Kultz v. Jaeger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This paper not only appoints an executor, but intends to devise and bequeath real and personal property, in language which we do not here need to interpret, and also contains a residuary clause with two blanks for names, the effect of which we need not here consider. It suffices upon these issues to say that the whole paper, taken together, shows on its face that it was executed animo testandi; that the person who executed it did so intending to dispose of all her estate, and to name her executor; and it was witnessed properly as a will conveying real estate. The contenis and execution of the paper conclusively prove it to be in that sense a complete paper, — • a testamentary disposition of property, which should be admitted to probate. Whether the devises and bequests, or any of them, be invalid or in part ineffective, we may not, upon these issues, inquire. The forma] paper contains the blanks where the names of the residuary beneficiaries should appear, but the omissions do not determine that the testatrix did not intend the paper, as it stood, to be her will. On the contrary, it is a complete and finished paper, executed and published animo testandi, without anything further to be done in order to perfect it. These omissions alone do not make it an invalid will.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGuigan v. Jaeger