Conley v. Nailor’s Empirical Analysis
118 U.S. 127 · 1886
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1954 · most notably Towson v. Moore (1899), Farrell v. Forest Investment Co. (1917)
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Allore v. Jewell · Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy · Gay v. Parpart · Rooney v. . Second Avenue Railroad Company
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The undue influence for which a will or deed will be annulled must be such as that the party making it has no free will, but stand in vinculis. It must amount to force or coercion, destroying free agency.” Conley v. Nailor, 118 U. S. 134 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1001 , 30 L. Ed. 112 ; Ralston v. Turpin, 129 U. S. 663 , 9 Sup. Ct. 420 , 32 L. Ed. 747 ; Mackall v. Mackall, 135 U. S. 167 , 10 Sup. Ct. 705 , 34 L. Ed. 84 ; Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17 , 19 Sup. Ct. 332 , 43 L. Ed. 597 ; Kennedy v. Bates, 142 Fed. 52 , 56, 57, 73 C. C. A. 237 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ralston v. Turpin · Towson v. Moore““The bill neither required nor waived an answer under oath, but the defendant answered under oath, traversing all the averments of the hill, upon which the prayer for relief was based. * * * The answer, though not called for under oath, is evidence on behalf of the defendant. For, if a plaintiff in equity is unwilling that the answer should be evidence agjainst him, he must expressly waive the oath of tho defendant in his bill. See amendment to 41 Equity Rule. If he fail to do this, the answer must be given under oath and is evidence. This branch, therefore, of the plaintiff’s case breaks down, because all the testimony in the record upon the question of consideration is against the averment of tho bill.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jacobs v. Van Sickle““The answer, though not called for under oath, is evidence in behalf of the defendant; for, if a plaintiff in equity is unwilling that the answer should be evidence against him, he must expressly waive the oath of the defendant in his bill. See amendment to forty-first equity rule. If he fails to do this, the answer must be given under oath and is evidence.””
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.