Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 P.2d 900 - Tapp v. Mitchell

Tapp v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2000

11 state decisions

6019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 811

Relies on Thompson v. Wiseman · Central Trust Co. v. Burrow · Baker v. Baker · Isaacson v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Grise, Admr. v. Weiss, Admr.

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

  1. “The property described in Clause VI was separated and distinguished from other personalty of the testator. It may be easily identified. The gift can be satisfied solely by the things bequeathed. Considering the instrument as a whole, as we must do, we are led to the conclusion it was the unmistakable intention of the decedent that the designated legatees receive the property enumerated and should have nothing else in substitution therefor. The bequest, which bears no relation to other assets of the estate, may not be made a burden or charge thereupon. If the property described in Clause VI had no existence, due to alienation, extinction or destruction when the bequest became operative at testator’s death, the legacy would fail. In re Van Duyne’s Estate, 205 Okl. 440 , 239 P.2d 387 . ****** Nor does the will specify a different order of resort to property in the event of deficiency from that which the law imposes. In the absence of a clear testamentary indication to the contrary, the mandatory provisions of 84 O.S.1951, § 3, subdivision 5, must be applied and given effect. In re Fletcher’s Estate, supra. The will, as indicated above, is barren of any indicia showing testatorial preference or priority among the legacies and devises. The testamentary gifts embraced in Clauses II, III, IV, V and VI (the only assets now remaining in the estate) are all specific in character. They fall within an identical class and thus stand, inter se, upon an equal footing. The weight of authorit”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “I hereby give, devise and bequeath to [naming five individuals] in equal shares all cash and bonds, all oil and gas properties and royalties, and all notes and accounts receivable which I may own at the time of my death.”
    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.