Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 KAN 13 - Flintjer v. Rehm

Flintjer v. Rehm’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
March 1986
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 1986 · most notably Klose v. Collins (1933), Loucks v. McCormick (1967)

25 state decisions

601926193019401950196019701980decided

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 Post v. Hagan · 7 Cal. App. 14 - Nobles v. Hutton · Flowers v. Flowers · Kelty v. Burgess · Stafford v. Sutcliffe

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

  1. ““There has long been a principle recognized by courts of equity pertaining to gifts during life, where the donor gave all, or the principal part, of his property to one who stood in a confidential relation to him, which principle required the donee in such an instance to show not only that the donation was knowingly made, but that the donor had independent advice pertaining thereto. (See 28 C. J. 654, and cases there cited; also, Nobles v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 14; Flowers v. Flowers, 94 Okla. 134 ; Pruitt v. Gause, 193 Ia. 1354 .) Our legislature has written this principle into the law of wills. In Post v. Hagan, 71 N. J. Eq. 234, the term ‘independent advice’ in this connection was held to mean ‘that the donor had the preliminary benefit of conferring fully and privately upon the subject of his intended gift with a person who was not only competent to inform him correctly as to its legal effect, but who was, furthermore, so disassociated from the interests of the donee as to be in a position to advise with the donor impartially and confidentially as to the consequences to himself of his proposed benefaction.’ ” (Flintjer v. Rehm, 120 Kan. 13, 17 , 241 Pac. 1087 .)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . • such will was written or prepared by the sole or principal beneficiary in such will, who, at the time of writing or preparing the same, was the confidential agent or legal adviser of the testator, or who occupied at the time any other position of confidence or trust to such testator.””
    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.