Robertson v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A remainder after a life estate is none the less vested because subject to being defeated by the exercise of a power of sale if, apart from the existence of the power, it would be a vested remainder. In these circumstances such a remainder is a vested remainder subject to being divested by the exercise of the power rather than a contingent remainder. Dana v. Dana, 185 Mass. 156, 160 , 70 N.E. 49 (1904); Ball v. Holland, 189 Mass. 369 , 75 N.E. 713 , 1 L.R.A.N.S. 1005 (1905); Reed v. Reed, 194 Mass. 216, 218 , 80 N.E. 219 (1907); American Baptist Publication Society v. Lufkin, 197 Mass. 221, 223, 224 , 83 N.E. 401 (1908); Coates v. Lunt, 210 Mass. 314, 318 , 96 N.E. 685 (1911); Crowell v. Chapman, 257 Mass. 492, 497-499 , 154 N.E. 397 . (The words ‘contingent remainders’ 257 Mass, on page 497, 54 N.E. on page 400, of the Crowell case obviously are not used in their technical sense since the remainders in question are referred to as ‘vesting in right at the death’ of the testator.) Sugden on Powers, 8th Ed., pages 452, 453. And in our opinion the conditional language with reference to the gift in default of sale under the power, ‘In case that at the death of the survivor of said Grace M. Morse and said Alvah W. Morse said homestead has not then been sold,’ does not of itself preclude this result so far as the effect of the existence of the power to sell is concerned. See Dana v. Dana, 185 Mass. 156, 157, 160 , 70 N.E. 49 ; Harvard College v. Balch, 171 111. 275, 282, 49 N.E. 54”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Madoff v. Amaral (In re Amaral)

2. ““§252. Alternative Limitation Employing the Word ‘or.’ “In a limitation purporting to create a remainder or an ex-ecutory interest, in ‘B or his children,’ or in ‘B or his issue,’ or in ‘B or his descendants,’ or by other language of similar import, the alternative form tends to establish as to the interest of B that “(a) a requirement of survival to the end of all preceding interests exists; and “(b) such survival is a condition precedent of such interest. “* * * The rule stated in this Section is equally applicable whether ‘B’ is one person or a group of persons. * * * “Sometimes a limitation of a remainder or an executory interest is worded ‘to B or his heirs’ * * *. Any such limitation constitutes ‘language of similar import’ * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henkel v. Auchstetter