Forth v. Forth’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ballard v. State · 153 Ind. App. 245 - Hauck v. Second National Bank of Richmond · Williams v. State · Asc Corporation v. First Nat. Bank, Etc. · 160 Ind. App. 310 - Link v. Sun Oil Company
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[First,] ‘[w]hether words are precatory or mandatory depends upon the express intention of the testator and is determined by the context of the will.’ Forth v. Forth (1980), Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 1107, 1113 .... [Second,] ‘[w]here the maker of the will repeatedly uses concise, legal, and technical terms to express his intention to vest an estate or interest in property, a change in phraseology to precatory expressions in connection with the disposition of other property indicates rather clearly that he did not intend such precatory words to create enforceable obligations; otherwise, he would not have abandoned language with which he was familiar and which was unmistakably suited for the purpose.’ Lewis v. Atkins (1952), 122 Ind.App. 618 , 105 N.E.2d 183 ).”
2 later decisions 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.