16 Cal. App. 2d 154 - MacFarlane v. Farwell’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1976 · most notably 25 Cal. 2d 520 - Teel v. Gaskill (1944), 16 Cal. 2d 573 - Peterson v. Logan (1940)
33 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 Jenkins v. Anderson · Snowball v. Snowball · Estate of Graves · 61 Cal. App. 163 - Galbraith v. Panini · In Re Estate of Nutt
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““You are instructed that where a confidential relationship exists between the testatrix and the beneficiary under the will, coupled with activity on the part of the beneficiary in the preparation of the will, and is profiting unduly thereby, casts upon the proponent the burden of showing that the will was not the product of such imposition and you are further instructed that the mere fact that the will was executed out of the presence of proponent does not in itself refute the charge of imposition or presumption. It is a circumstance, however, to be considered by you.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MacKechnie v. Oliver“evidence of the testator's mental status, together with his appearance, conduct, acts, habits and conversation, both before and after the execution of the will, are admissible so long as they have a reasonable tendency to indicate his mental condition at the time of the execution of the will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The proper inference to be deduced from the testimony is that the acts of the attorney who drew the will, being the attorney for the appellant, are imputable and chargeable to appellant. (Estate of Nutt, 181 Cal. 522 [ 185 P. 393 ].) ””
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.