Childs v. Hutson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2017
8 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 King v. Bankerd · Balls v. Dampman · McElroy v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Pearson v. Orcutt · Emmert v. Hearn
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course ... the intention of the testatrix is to be determined by the words employed by her. But those words are not to be considered in isolation, but only in association with the other provisions of the will[—]the overall testamentary plan of the testatrix. In other words, the will must be read as a whole. Therefore, [the daughter’s power to sell, mortgage, lease, rent, or “in any other manner whatsoever to dispose of the entire estate,” except by will, must be construed in light of, and circumscribed by, [the testatrix]’s intent that the property would provide a residence or support for [the daughter] but would eventually be sold and the proceeds distributed to the designated beneficiaries. Thus, while the words contained in the broad power of disposi tion given [the daughter] in this case, if literally applied, would accommodate a gift of the property, the will in its entirety reveals that such a disposition was not within [the testatrix]’s real intention. The general plan of [the testatrix]’s will required that whatever disposition [the daughter] made of the property under the power granted to her, a monetary value would be received for it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vito v. Grueff“[The granddaughter] claimfs] that the plain meaning of the words contained in [the testatrix]’s will manifested an intention to grant [her daughter] absolute powers of disposition of the [ ] property, including disposition by gift. [The granddaughter] argue[s] that [the testatrix]’s intention must be gathered from only one source[—]the words employed by her. Accordingly, the [granddaughter] say[s] that because [the testatrix] vested [her daughter] with unlimited power to dispose of the [ ] property “in any other manner whatsoever,” except by will, that intention can only be gratified if [the daughter’s gift of the property is upheld.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vito v. Grueff
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.