Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 MICH 98 - Rivard v. Rivard

Rivard v. Rivard’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
12
states following
August 1973
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 1973 · most notably Hiler v. Cude (1970), Wisner v. Chandler (1915)

47 state decisions — followed in 12 states

180189619001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Marx v. . McGlynn · Fraser v. Jennison · People v. Seaman · Kempsey v. McGinniss · Beaubien v. Cicotte

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

  1. ““ Undue influence is not exercised openly. Like crime, it seeks secrecy in which to accomplish its poisonous work. It is largely a matter of inference from facts and circumstances surrounding the testator, his character and mental condition as shown by the evidence, and the opportunity possessed by the beneficiary for the exercise of such control.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Counsel ignore the other well-settled rule — that, while a man may be possessed of such capacity, he still may be unable to execute the will in question, on account of some delusion which has beclouded or taken away his judgment in regard to those who are the natural objects of his bounty. If a testator disinherits a daughter upon the belief that she is a bad woman, or that she is not his own offspring, or a son upon the belief that he is a drunkard, or his grandchildren upon the belief that his son-in-law has threatened to kill him, and it appears that there is no foundation in fact for any such beliefs, and they are shown to be mere delusions, a will disinheriting such children and grandchildren is void, notwithstanding he was entirely sane upon every other subject, and fully competent to manage his business affairs.””
    1 later decision 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.