Herron v. Stanton’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2013
22 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.
Relationships
Relies on Jones v. Habersham · Mason v. Bloomington Library Ass'n · Dykeman v. Jenkines · Myers v. Carney · Almy v. Jones
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In construing a will, or any item or provision thereof, the primary object is to ascertain the intention of the testator. Stieglitz v. Migatz (1914), 182 Ind. 549 , 105 N. E. 465 . The intention of the testator must be ascertained from the language used in the will; and where the language used is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one of which would violate an established rule of law, and thus destroy an intended provision, and the other would sustain the provision, the latter must be followed.””
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.