72 Ohio App. 149 - Moskowitz v. Federman’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 171 W. Va. 226 - In Re the Estate of Teubert (1982), 47 Ohio App. 3d 65 - Birman v. Sproat (1988)
45 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.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A proceeding for a declaratory judgment must be based upon an actual controversy. The proceeding does not lie to obtain a judgment which is merely advisory or which answers a moot or abstract question. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Sec. 120. Members of a Definite Class. “The members of a definite class of persons can be the beneficiaries of a trust. * * * • “c. Power of Selection by a Trustee. A trust may be created for the benefit of the members of a definite class of persons although by the terms of the trust the trustee is authorized to select which of the members of the class shall take and in what proportions. This is true whether the trustee has discretion only as to the proportion of the trust property which each member of the class is to receive or has discretion to exclude some members of the class altogether. “d. Who can enforce the trust. If a trust is created for the members of a definite class and the trustee commits or threatens to commit a breach of trust, a suit in equity can be maintained by any member of the class to redress or enjoin the breach of trust, although the trustee has power to select which members of the class shall take and although he has not yet exercised the power. Each member of the class is a beneficiary of the trust until he has been excluded by the exercise of the power of selection in favor of other members of the class. The mere fact that a member of the class may ultimately take nothing does not prevent him from maintaining a suit to redress or enjoin a breach of trust since each of the beneficiaries is in this position, and if nine could maintain a suit the trustee might commit a breach of trust with impunity. * * * “Sec. 121. Relatives. “There can be a trust o”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zweig v. Zweig““The instrument under consideration violates none of the principles of trusts pronounced in the many cited cases and text. And it may fairly be stated that a testamentary trust which is created for the distribution of the assets of an estate to members of a definite class of persons, or to charitable organizations, or to both or to none, all within the entire discretion of the trustees, and which provides for a distribution of the entire residue of the estate at the end of twenty years from the time of testator’s death, is a valid trust, is within the rule against perpetu-ities, and which trust, if breached, may be enforced by any member of a class named as possible beneficiaries, and even though they have not been designated by the trustees to take.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also 2A Bogert, Trusts and Trustees,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rice v. Morris
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.