Rowe v. Strother’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1982
10 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 Cox v. Jones · Willard v. Darrah · McCoy v. Bradbury · Thomson v. Thomson · Ballantyne v. Turner
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Testatrix did not indicate in her will how much she had previously paid her physician, nor what amount she thought she still owed him; whether or not she meant by the ‘reasonable sum,’ mentioned the total value of all services rendered, or only the balance due after deducting payments, if any, previously made; whether she had in mind services going back, ‘a year or two,’ ... or for the whole period during which Dr. Rowe had treated her; nor whether the services mentioned were services already rendered or included services to be rendered . . . Further, who is to determine the ‘reasonable sum’ which she said she wanted her executors to pay, and how determine it? The executors? The will does not express an intent to clothe them with such discretion. Was it to be determined by the Court, and if so what Court? The law provides a method for determining and paying debts against a decedent’s estate, viz., by the timely filing of a demand in the probate court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * such intrinsic [extrinsic] evidence is admissible solely for the purpose of ascertaining the testator’s intention from the language he has used. It cannot be heard to show that he meant one thing when he said another, or to show an intention not expressed in the will itself, or to aid in making a will which the testator intended to malee, but did not in fact make. However clearly an intention not expressed in the will may be proved by extrinsic evidence, the rule of law requiring wills to be in writing stands as an insuperable barrier against carrying the intention thus proved into execution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““I give, devise and bequeath to my physician and friend, Dr. W. Gr. Rowe, the sum of One Thousand Dollars for the reason that he has been my physician for years and I never felt as though I had paid him what his services were worth, and in addition to said One Thousand dollars, I want my executors to pay him a reasonable sum for his services as my physician. He has not only been my physician but one of my best personal friends in Blue Springs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.