Dickerson v. Union Nat. Bank of Little Rock Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A testamentary trust designed to last until the death of the testator’s son’s “widow” was voided. The court found it violated the Rule Against Perpetuities due to the classic “unborn widow” problem, where the widow might not be a life in being.
Legal Significance: This case provides a clear illustration of the “unborn widow” scenario invalidating a future interest under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. It also clarifies that an interest is contingent if the takers cannot be ascertained until a future event.
Dickerson v. Union Nat. Bank of Little Rock Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The testatrix’s holographic will created a trust for the benefit of her two sons, Cecil and Martin, and their descendants. The will named a bank as trustee. The trust’s termination clause stated it would continue “until the death of both my sons and my son Martin’s widow and until the youngest child of either son has reached the age of twenty-five years.” Upon termination, the trust assets were to be distributed to the “bodily heirs” of her two sons according to Arkansas inheritance laws. At the testatrix’s death, both sons were alive. Ten years after the will was probated and the estate closed, one son, Cecil, filed suit to have the trust declared void, arguing it violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. The bank, as trustee, argued the claim was barred by res judicata and that the trust was valid. The trial court agreed with the bank, and Cecil appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a testamentary trust that terminates upon the death of a son’s unnamed widow violate the Rule Against Perpetuities when the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries, the son’s “bodily heirs,” cannot be ascertained until the trust’s termination?
Yes. The trust is void because the future interests it creates for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a testamentary trust that terminates upon the death of a son’s unnamed widow violate the Rule Against Perpetuities when the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries, the son’s “bodily heirs,” cannot be ascertained until the trust’s termination?
Conclusion
This case serves as a quintessential example of the "unborn widow" pitfall Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
An interest must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the classic "unborn widow" problem inherent in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tem
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Res Judicata: A party’s failure to challenge a trust’s validity during