Gushwa v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. ““At the outset, we note that our Probate Code, unlike that of other states, does not allow for revocation of a will by any ‘other writing.’ Compare [N.M. Stat.] § 45-2-507(A)(l) [ (1993) ] (‘A will or any part thereof is revoked ... by executing a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or part expressly or by inconsistency ....’) with Fla. Stat. § 732.505 (2) (2002) (‘A will or codicil, or any part of either, is revoked ... [b]y a subsequent will, codicil, or other writing executed with the same formalities required for the execution of wills declaring the revocation.’ (Emphasis added.)). As our Court of Appeals has previously explained: “ ‘Generally, the question whether a will can be revoked by a writing not testamentary in character depends upon the provisions of the governing statute.... [W]here the statute omits the clause “some other writing” or its equivalent, and simply states that no will shall be revoked except by some other “will, testament or codicil in writing, declaring the same,” it has been held that a will may not be revoked by a writing not testamentary in character.’ “[In re Estate of] Martinez, ... 127 N.M. 650 , [652,] 985 P.2d 1230 [, 1232 (Ct.App.1999) ] (quoting E.T. Tsai, Annotation, Revocation of Will By Nontestamentary Writing, 22 A.L.R.3d § 2(a), at 1351 (1968)). “Wife argues that the Revocation of Missing Will(s) document should be given the effect of a subsequent will because of its language expressly revoking Decedent’s prior will. Wife ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 1 - Brown v. Brown