Smith v. Davison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Regardless of the terms used its [the second will's] real effect was to amend the provisions of the earlier will, and while it made certain changes, additions and alterations in the manner of distribution provided in the first will, it kept the larger part of those provisions intact and left the larger part of the estate to the same persons and in the same manner as in the first will. There is no evidence to sustain the court's finding or conclusion that the second will was not intended to be amendatory of or a codicil to the first will. Not only was the second instrument in effect a codicil, but under the provisions of section 72 of the Probate Code its execution did not revoke the first will ( Estate of Schnoor, supra ). This being true, and no other testamentary instrument having been left in force and effect by the deceased, the first will should have been admitted to probate. . . . The decedent having intentionally revoked an *Page 97 instrument which was in practical effect a codicil, no inconsistency remains which nullifies any part of the first will and the same should be accepted as the last will of the decedent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 108 Cal. App. 3d 88 - Estate of Hering

2. ““A valid second will making a complete disposition of the property and which is offered for probate usually supersedes a prior will, and this whether or not its terms are inconsistent with those of the prior will in whole or in part. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 Cal. App. 2d 866 - Estate of Benson