Long v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 180 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Krischbaum v. Dillon (1991), Lozano v. Lozano (2001)
3 federal appellate · 180 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 Scott v. Townsend · Bergstedt v. Bender
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is not possible to frame a definition of undue influence which embraces all forms and phases of the term. Every case is different from every other case, and must depend largely on its own facts and circumstances. Generally speaking, undue influence is such influence or dominion as exercised at the time, under the facts and circumstances of the case, which destroys the free agency of the testator, and substitutes in the place thereof the will of another. Undue influence has also been defined as that dominion acquired by one person over the mind of another which prevents the latter from exercising his discretion, and which destroys his free agency. Also, undue influence has been defined as That which compels the testator to do that which is against his will from fear, the desire of peace, or some feeling which he is unable to resist.’ 42 TexJur., p. 792, sec. 2, and authorities there cited. “It cannot be said that every influence exerted by one person over the mind of another is undue. The influence is not undue unless the free agency of the testator has been destroyed, and a will produced that such testator did not desire to make. 42 Tex.Jur., p. 793, sec. 4. ****** “It is rarely possible to prove undue influence by what is generally known as direct testimony. Undue influence is usually a subtle thing, and by its very nature it usually involves an extended course of dealings and circumstances. Usually a person charging undue influence must substantiate such charges by circ”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lyle v. Bentley · Hassell v. Pruner““Boiled down, we have this case before us: Mrs. Long at the time this will was executed was in a very weakened condition. Frank O. Long mainly looked after her business affairs. Frank O. Long went to an attorney and had his mother’s will written. He gave the attorney full instructions as to how to write such will. According to natural law, the will is unfair to this contestant, and gives Frank O. Long more than he would have gotten under the laws of descent and distribution. Frank O. Long paid the attorney for writing the will; he carried him to the home of the testatrix; he carried him back after the will was signed; he took charge of the will after it was signed; the testatrix signed the thing that was presented to her, without question or suggestion; Frank O. Long had every opportunity to unduly influence his mother, as he was constantly with her, and constantly attended to her business; and the will is' not a natural one according to moral law. At least, the jury could have so found. We think that the above facts constitute some evidence of undue influence-. In this regard, we think that Frank O. Long’s actions with reference to having this will drawn can be considered with tremendous force against him, and against the will.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Long v. Long · Lynn v. Jackson“Taking the case as a whole, we are of the opinion that this record presents a fact issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Long v. Long
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.