paramount rule in Colorado

6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Armstrong v. Barbergreen · 1909 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1913–1913 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	2
The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Weeksgreen colo · 2021 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024People v. Weeks , 2021 CO 75, ¶ 25, 498 P.3d 142, 151. 2024People v. Weeks , 2021 CO 75, ¶ 25, 498 P.3d 142, 151.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Williams v. Fundingsland green colo · 1923 2 sentences 1962From Williams v. Fundingsland, 74 Colo. 315 , 221 Pac. 1084 , we quote: “The paramount rule in the construction of a will is to ascertain from the instrument in its entirety the intention of the testator; and if that intent is not prohibited by law, it is the duty of the courts to give effect thereto. 1962From Williams v. Fundingsland, 74 Colo. 315 , 221 Pac. 1084 , we quote: “The paramount rule in the construction of a will is to ascertain from the instrument in its entirety the intention of the testator; and if that intent is not prohibited by law, it is the duty of the courts to give effect thereto.	2	1962–1963
Cabrera García v. Registrar of Property of San Germán green prsupreme · 1933 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	1913–1913
Chilcott v. Hart green · 1896 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	1913–1913
Bacon v. Nichols neutral colo · 1909 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	1913–1913
University of Colorado v. Wilson neutral colo · 1913 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	1913–1913
Orr v. Yates green ill · 1904 2 sentences 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L. 1913The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all others must yield, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in the will must he ascertained and given effect if not prohibited by law. — Bacon v. Nichols, 47 Colo., 31 , 105 Pac., 1082 ; University v. Wilson, 54 Colo., 510 , 131 Pac., 422 ; Armstrong v. Barber, 239 Ill., 389, 394, 398 , 88 N. E., 246 ; Orr v. Yates, 209 Ill., 222 , 70 N. E., 731 ; Chilcott v. Hart, 23 Colo., 40 , 45 Pac., 391 , 35 L.	2	1913–1913
Roseboom v. . Roseboom green ny · 1880 1 sentence 1909But it is a paramount principle that the court shall carry out the general intent of the testator; and where a particular word or sentence is repugnant to the general intent and design of the whole will, or tends to render it incongruous or insensible, such word or' sentence must give way, rather than sacrifice the whole scheme of disposition disclosed by the general tenor of the instrument.” In the case of Roseboom v. Roseboom et al., 81 N. Y. 356 , involving a somewhat similar contention wherein it is claimed at the death of the wife the testator bequeaths “all my property, both real and per	1	1909–1909

Where else courts name it

CA 130 (1897–2025) IL 75 (1869–2021) WV 71 (1953–2026) MO 53 (1887–2024) AR 38 (1934–2024) SC 29 (1960–2026) TX 29 (1935–2018) MI 28 (1970–2026) TN 26 (1879–2020) NY 22 (1885–2018) PA 19 (1923–2024) MS 16 (1909–2026) VA 15 (1988–2021) IN 14 (1872–2008) MD 12 (1925–2018) FL 12 (1970–2021) KS 11 (1955–1994) AL 11 (1892–2002) GA 11 (1970–2019) OH 10 (1901–2024) OK 10 (1920–2016) WA 8 (1947–2023) LA 7 (1939–2004) UT 6 (1982–2011) MA 6 (1947–2003) CO 6 (1909–2024) KY 5 (1982–2014) IA 5 (1914–2014) WY 5 (1883–1988) NJ 5 (1953–2015) SD 4 (1898–2002) WI 4 (1967–2016) NC 4 (1934–2016) MT 4 (1893–1960) DE 3 (1959–2019) AZ 2 (1915–2011) CT 2 (1901–1988) ID 2 (1975–1992) NV 2 (1968–2022) OR 2 (1894–1975) ND 2 (1954–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check