Crowley v. Engelke’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 1991
3 federal appellate · 15 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 Knight v. Pottgieser · Bates v. Gillett · Lachenmyer v. Gehlbach · Carter v. Carter · Peter v. Peter
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . We do not quarrel with the statement and claim with regard to the effect of a spendthrift provision upon the interest of the spendthrift and the assign-ability of the interest given to the spendthrift by the will of the testator . . . There is no spendthrift provision in the will respecting his [remainderman’s] interest. He does not obtain possession or enjoyment of the property until the termination of the trust. There can be no spendthrift provision as to him, because he takes possession when the trust ends, and certainly there is no rule which applies a spendthrift provision affecting the ancestor to a child who takes the remainder in fee . . .””
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.