Hoff v. Hoff’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 1965 · most notably Dryden v. Rogers (1957), Klose v. Collins (1933)
5 federal appellate · 21 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 Ginter v. Ginter · Rivera v. White, Guardian · Bruington v. Wagoner · Wideman v. Faivre · Durand v. Higgins
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it may be conceded that one who has no mind to be influenced cannot be subjected to undue influence, yet one who has a feeble- mind, a defective will, a confused intelligence and deficient understanding, may be highly susceptible to influence, due or undue. ... In 1 Jarman on Wills, 6th ed., page 66, it is said that although there is no necessary connection between undue influence and partial incapacity, they are apt to be found together. The books are full of cases where wills have been set aside for want of testamentary capacity. How came such wills to have ever been made? Undue influence or similar fraudulent wrongdoing on the part of some intermeddling self-seeker is commonly and most probably the correct explanation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gorman v. Hickey““. . . Viewed as gifts inter vivos, the burden was on Peter, owing to his confidential relationship, to show that he did not obtain them through undue influence, and he failed to sustain that burden. (Smith v. Smith, 84 Kan. 242 , 114 Pac. 245 ; Coblentz v. Putifer, 97 Kan. 679 , 156 Pac. 700 .)” (p. 550.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Henks v. Panning
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.