Kerper v. Kerper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I. HUSKY ROYALTY. “A. Findings of Fact. “(1) The Declaration of Trust, executed by Loujen Kerper as purported Trustor, dated September 7, 1965, as to the Husky Oil royalty, (1) provides for vested remainders, in equal one-fourth Q/i) shares to MEIKE KERPER (formerly Minabelle Kerper Milodragovich) LOUJEN KER-PER (formerly Loujen Kerper Kuiva), JANEEN KERPER and JILL KERPER; (2) pursuant to the terms of this trust and the accomplishment of its purposes, this trust terminated and became distributable to said four remaindermen on September 1, 1967 and at all times since; (3) that the said four remaindermen were then and now are entitled to conveyance of each of their undivided one-fourth (¼) interest therein together with any accumulated income, but for the Order of this Court hereinafter deferring such distribution and payment. “B. Conclusions of Law. “(1) The Amendment to Declaration of Trust No. 1, executed by Loujen Kerper as purported Trustor on May 30, 1972, was not effective as to the 1965 Declaration of Trust for two reasons. First, the 1965 Declaration had already expired by its terms, and secondly, no power to revoke, amend or modify had been reserved in the 1965 Declaration of Trust and, accordingly by operation of law, it was irrevocable and not subject to any amendment or modification. “(2) The Amendment to Declaration of Trust No. 1 did not constitute a partial modification of the trust as to only Lou-jen Kerper’s undivided one-fourth (¼) thereof, because the real”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kerper v. Kerper

2. “Generally, social or familial hostility, between the trustee and one or more benefi-claries of a trust is insufficient in and of itself to warrant removal of a trustee. The real question in these situations is whether or not the hostility, in combination with existing circumstances, materially interferes with the administration of the trust or is likely to cause that result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. William C. Forbes and Julia Forbes, Trustees of the Beckton Ranch Trust U/A/D April 1, 1920

3. “[The court has sound discretion to make a determination as to removal. We will not disturb an exercise of district court discretion unless its actions are shown to have been made arbitrarily and capriciously and in disregard of the use of sound judgment regarding what is right under the cireum-stances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Moyer