Danz v. Danz’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2016
13 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 Blatchford v. Newberry · Smith v. Shepard · Riddle v. Killian · Slocum v. Hagaman · Blackstone v. Althouse
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Whether a remainder is vested or contingent depends upon the language employed. If the conditional element is incorporated into the description of, or into the gift to the remainder-men, then the remainder is contingent; but if, after words giving a vested interest, a clause is added divesting it, the remainder is vested. Thus, on a devise to A for life, remainder to his children, but if any child dies in the lifetime of A his share to go to those who survive, the share of each child is vested, subject to be divested by its death. But on a devise to A for life, remainder to such of his children as survive him, the remainder is contingent.’ ” Danz, 373 Ill. at 486-87 , 26 N.E.2d at 874 , quoting J. Gray, The Rule Against Perpetuities §108, at 85-86 (3d ed. 1915).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The final question to be considered, is whether the remainder is prevented from being accelerated because of the executory devise over, which is limited to take effect in the event either remainderman should die before the time for distribution. Executory devises, being so limited that they would not have been permitted under the common law, were allowed as legal estates after the passage of the Statute of Wills, in order to prevent their defeat by the holder of the prior interest. .. . "The executory devise is destructible by arrival of the period for distribution, for if the time for division is reached before the happening of the contingency upon which the remainder is to be divested, the executory devise is defeated."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.