Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 VA 540 - Savage v. Bowen

Savage v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
12
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably In Re Estate of Baker (1915), Ramseyer v. Dennis (1917)

29 state decisions — followed in 12 states

80190519101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Richmond Locomotive Works v. Ford · Virginia & North Carolina Wheel Co. v. Chalkley · Burke v. Shaver · Parramore v. Taylor

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

  1. ““The purpose of the statutory requirements with respect to the execution of wills was to throw every safeguard deemed necessary around a testator while in the performance of this important act, and to prevent the probate of a fraudulent and supposititious will instead of the real one. To effectually accomplish this, the statute must be strictly followed. It is, however, quite as important that these statutory requirements should not be supplemented by the courts with others that might tend to increase the difficulty of the transaction to such an extent as to practically destroy the right of the uninformed layman to dispose of his property by will.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The demurrer was properly overruled. The allegations of the bill show such an interest in the subject-matter as entitles the appellees to impeach the will. Controversies of this character usually arise between persons claiming as heirs at law on the one hand, and as devisees under the contested will on the other. George L. Savage, as heir of Ann C. Savage, would have had the right to impeach the will, and no reason is perceived why those claiming under and through him are not entitled to his rights in that respect.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.