Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 KAN 406 - Daily v. Moore

Daily v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Harkrader v. Johnson (1947), Cramer v. Browne (1945)

26 state decisions

10019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Zabel v. Stewart · Williams v. Miles · Johnson v. Briggs · Johnson v. Muller · Farney v. Hauser

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

  1. ““In an action to defeat the probate of a will on the ground it had been revoked in the manner provided for in G. S. 1943 Supp. 59-611 material parol testimony as well as written evidence was received. Held, the trial court is the trier of the facts and the supreme court will not try de novo the issues raised by the pleadings. “When in an action of the character described in the preceding paragraph of the syllabus there is substantial, competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court, this court will not review the evidence for the purpose of determining its weight and precise preponderance and will treat such findings as conclusive on appeal even though the record discloses some evidence on which contrary findings might have been based.” (Syl. ¶¶ 1 and 2.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Except as provided in section 46 [59-610], no will in writing shall be revoked or altered otherwise than by some other will in writing; or by some other writing of the testator declaring such revocation or alteration and executed with the same formalities with which the will itself was required by law to be executed; or unless such will be burnt, tom, canceled, obliterated or destroyed, with the intent and for the purpose of revoking the same, by the testator himself or by another person in his presence by his direction.””
    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.