Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Mass. 274 - Warner v. Bates

Warner v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis

1867

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
February 1964
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1964 · most notably Colton v. Colton (1888), Phillips v. . Phillips (1889)

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions — followed in 14 states

9018671870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Farwell v. Jacobs · Erickson v. Willard

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

  1. ““Can always be readily overcome by bearing in mind and rigidly applying in all such cases the test that, to create a trust, it must clearly appear that the testator intended to govern and control the conduct of the party to whom the language of the will is addressed, and did not design it as an expression or indication of that which the testator thought would be a reasonable exercise of a discretion which he intended to repose in the legatee or devisee. If the objects of the supposed trust are certain and definite; if the property to which it is to attach is clearly pointed out; and, above all, if the recommendatory or precatory clause is so expx-essed as to warrant the inference that it was designed to be peremptory on the devisee,—the just and reasonable interpretation is that a trust is created which is obligatory and can be enforced in equity against the trustee by those in whose behalf the beneficial use of the gift was intended.””
    3 later decisions 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.