Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Ind. App. 80 - Heath v. Strunk

152 Ind. App. 80 - Heath v. Strunk’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 1990
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, Admx. · Woodfill v. Patton · Roberts v. Fisher · 134 Ind. App. 298 - Brennan v. Reydell · 124 Ind. App. 686 - Estate of Granger v. Gosport Cemetery Ass'n

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

  1. “We recognize as a settled principle of law that where the testator retains the possession or control of his will, and at or after his death it is not found, or is found thereafter in a mutilated or defaced condition, the presumption arises that he destroyed or mutilated it for the purpose of revoking it. But this presumption may be rebutted by evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It has been held that where a testator retains possession or control of his will and it is not found at or after his death, an "inference" arises that he destroyed it or mutilated it for the purpose of revoking it. In re Patton's Will, 1951, 121 Ind. App. 256 , 95 N.E.2d 311 , 96 N.E.2d 353 . It is to be noted that the court in that case used the word "inference" and not "presumption." The distinction is important because it is for the jury or the court as a trier of facts to determine whether a permissible inference should be drawn. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, Adm'x, 1940, 216 Ind. 545 , 24 N.E.2d 284 . In this case the trial court rejected the inference urged by appellant and found in favor of appellees. This it had a right to do if there was sufficient evidence upon which to base a reasonable inference of probative value that the testator did not intentionally revoke his will or codicil. In cases involving the wrongful or fraudulent destruction of a will, there is never any direct evidence of such destruction, and if there was such at all, it must be reasonably inferred from the facts and surrounding circumstances presented at the trial.”
    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.