Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 KY 421 - Rutledge v. Wiggington

Rutledge v. Wiggington’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2011

10 state decisions

6019151920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““Under our statute, a will to be valid must be wholly in the handwriting of the testator, or it must be subscribed or acknowledged by him in the presence of at least two credible witnesses, who shall subscribe the will with their names in his presence.””
    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.