Slover v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Courts accept with caution and examine with scrutiny evidence offered in support of a contract to make a disposition of property of a deceased person different from that provided by law. * * * A high order of proof is required to sustain such contracts, and the claimant is held to a strict proof thereof, and the evidence must establish that the minds of the parties met on definite terms." 94 C.J.S. Wills § 113(2), pp. 868-869 (1956).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of Estate of Bell · Sievers v. Barton Ex Rel. Estate of Barton

2. ““(1) To take and receive Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars in cash and a life estate in such property of the estate as becomes subject to distribution, as devised and bequeathed to them under the terms and provisions of the testator’s will. “ (2) To take judgment in their favor and against the estate in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Four and 80/100 ($127,294.80) Dollars less the sum of $10,000.00, the cost and expenses of administration, including all amounts paid in satisfaction of taxes and specific bequests of money, with the understanding that the judgment shall not become a lien against the real estate of the estate, but shall be paid and satisfied from the personal estate of the deceased. “(3) To have partial satisfaction of the judgment in kind by applying the livestock, machinery and equipment of the estate, including the livestock brands, household furniture, fixtures and appliances, and all other personal property of the estate at the appraised values heretofore established and returned in the inventory and appraisement of the estate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. Slover

3. ““ * * * It is true that the courts generally seem to be inclined to hold that a devise or legacy shall not be construed to be in satisfaction of an indebtedness, unless that is clear. 1 Thus it has been held that when the legacy is smaller in amount than the indebtedness, * * * it will not be deemed to be in satisfaction thereof. * * * However, in the case at bar, we have one factor not frequently found in cases. The theory of the plaintiffs is that the services of plaintiffs were to be compensated by a provision in a last will and testament. The evidence in the case is to the same effect. * * * That indicates that the plaintiffs were to be compensated by a provision in a will, and even though compensated inadequately, the intention clearly was that it should be in satisfaction at least pro tanto. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hammer v. Atchison