Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 Cal. App. 4th 83 - Johnson v. Kotyck

76 Cal. App. 4th 83 - Johnson v. Kotyck’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Heggstad v. Heggstad · Wells Fargo Bank v. Keresey · 40 Cal. App. 4th 1334 - Fletcher v. Children's Hospital Medical Center Foundation · 50 Cal. App. 2d 457 - In Re Ochoa

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

  1. “So long as a trust is revocable, a beneficiary’s rights are merely potential, rather than vested. The beneficiary’s interest could evaporate in a moment at the whim of the trustor.... Giving a beneficiary with a contingent, nonvested interest all the rights of a vested beneficiary is untenable. We cannot confer on the contingent beneficiary rights that are illusory, which the beneficiary only hopes to have upon the death of the trustor, but only if the trust has not been previously revoked and the beneficiary has outlived the trustor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[U]nder basic principles of trust law, since the trust is revocable, Ed’s interest in it is, at least up to this point in time, ... "`merely potential’ and could `evaporate in a moment at the whim of the [trustor],’”
    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.