Richardson v. Beebee’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 1983
24 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 Estate of Platt · Salmonski v. Bardzinski · 30 Cal. 2d 274 - Estate of Wunderle · 23 Cal. 2d 632 - Gray v. Southern Pacific Co. · In Re Estate of Relph
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Construing the instrument alone it shows it was not intended to be testamentary. While if the portion above the first signature were all there was to the document, it could be considered as testamentary in spite of the fact that it is in letter form * the balance of the document shows that at most it is a letter to the bank telling them how she wished to change her will but intending that the preparation of a codicil or new will was necessary before such intent could be effected. To construe exhibit 2 as a will, the entire latter portion of it must be completely ¿disregarded.” (Italics added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Dear Mr. Scott “I wish to revoke all former wills & codicils to wills made by me as conditions no longer no longer [sic] exist, as at that time I wish to leave my entire Estate to my Son Ralph Agustus Beebee without reservation. ‘‘Sarah Agusta Beebee “I am eighty nine years old and growing blind, and not able to get down town to the bank. So please do what is necessary under the circumstances, whether by eodicile or a new will. “Sincerely “Sarah A Beebee ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While it is true that `the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal if the record discloses substantial evidence to support them,' ... such rule has no pertinency where the evidence without conflict clearly establishes the impropriety of the inferences drawn by the court from the uncontroverted facts. So here it appears that the probate court erred as a matter of law in its adjudication of the determinative issue the nature of the testamentary gifts and in such circumstances its findings contrary to the undisputed facts have no binding force.”
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.