384 So. 2d 7 - Carr v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. “"`The law says that where a latent ambiguity exists in a will, the court may resort to extrinsic evidence in ascertaining the intent of the testator. Perdue v. Roberts , 294 Ala. 194 , 314 So.2d 280 (1975). "`A latent ambiguity may arise in the identification of or application to the property or subject matter as described or bequeathed. See Wiley v. Murphree , 228 Ala. 64 , 151 So. 869 (1933). See also, Achelis v. Musgrove , 212 Ala. 47 , 101 So. 670 (1924). "`A latent ambiguity is to be distinguished from a patent ambiguity. A patent ambiguity is not a true ambiguity; it is merely confusion created on the face of the will by the use of defective, obscure or insensible language. On the other hand, a latent ambiguity occurs where the language is clear and intelligible, but when considered in light of certain extraneous facts, it takes on a multiple meaning. . . .'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 460 So. 2d 1267 - Fraley v. Brown