Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 CAL 387 - Lane v. Walker

Lane v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
18
states following
March 1981
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 1981 · most notably In Re the Estate of Manchester (1917), Brown v. Grzeskowiak (1951)

56 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1401895190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 In Re the Probate of the Will of O'Neil · Meehan v. Rourke

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

  1. ““1 Jarman on Wills (5th Ed.) p. 106, says that in ‘examining the requirements common to the Statute of Frauds and the Wills Act in their order, the next condition prescribed for the validity of a will is that it should be signed, which suggests the inquiry, what amounts to a “signing” by the testator? It has been decided that a mark is sufficient, and that, notwithstanding the testator is able to write, and though his name does not appear on the face of the will. A mark being sufficient, of course the initials of the testator’s name would also suffice. . . . ’ See, also, 1 Commentaries on the Law of Wills, Alexander, pp. 578, 579, 580; 1 Jessup-Redfield 519 et seq.; 40 Cyc. 1102.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In construing a statute the duty of the court is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance declared therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.” (Code Civ. Proe. § 1858.) The court further laid down the rule that”
    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.