Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 CONN 89 - Turner v. Balfour

Turner v. Balfour’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
4
states following
June 1910
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1910

4 state decisions

20189219001910decided

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.

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

  1. ““It is a familiar rule of construction that when a word is; used in one part of a will with a certain meaning, it is to have-the same meaning in other parts of the will unless the context shows that it must have a different one. We are led, then, to believe that when the testator used the word ‘share’ in the eleventh paragraph of his will he intended precisely the same-thing that he had indicated by that word in the tenth paragraph, — that is, an undivided half of the rest and residue of his estate, — and that he did not intend the share mentioned in the eleventh paragraph to include the devise to Robert in the- ninth paragraph of the will. The meaning of the word ‘share/ the rule of construction, and the words of the will, all concur to bring us to the same conclusion.””
    1 later decision 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.