Rossi v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Holt v. Holt (1950), In Re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Holibaugh (1955)
8 federal appellate · 49 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Smithsonian Institution v. Meech · Corcoran v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company · Womach v. City of St. Joseph · 7 Mo. App. 556 - Casey v. Steinmeyer · Kitchen v. Ballard
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After careful consideration of the question, we are of opinion that the conclusion reached by the Massachusetts court and in other decisions to like effect, as above indicated, is supported by the better reasons and rests upon the sounder logical foundation. It must be conceded that (subject to certain limitations or exceptions not here necessary to consider) a person may dispose of his property as he wishes. A prospective heir has, generally speaking, no vested right in his ancestor’s property. If there be a will the legatee or devisee takes thereunder what the will gives him and subject to the conditions thereby imposed. He may contest the will and show, if he can, that it is not the will of his ancestor, whereupon the whole purported will falls. But if it be established that it is in fact the ancestor’s will, then it would seem the will must stand, not in part but in toto. One cannot claim under a will and against it at the same time. He takes according to the will, or, so far as concerns the will, not at all. ‘It is a general principle of law that one cannot claim under a will and against it too, and one who accepts a beneficial interest under a will thereby adopts the whole will and renounces every right or claim that is inconsistent with the will.’ In re Bernays’ Estate [ 344 Mo. 135 ], 126 S.W.2d 209, 216 , 122 A.L.R. 169 , and cases cited. In a case such as we have before us the gift is made upon a condition which the courts generally hold is not opposed to public po”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dainton v. Watson“[I]n order to have estoppel by a former judgment (res adjudieata), there must be: (1) Identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.”
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.