Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 MO 214 - Kischman v. Scott

Kischman v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1901

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
4
states following
March 1986
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1986 · most notably Ditton v. Hart (1911), Hutchings v. Cobble (1911)

9 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

70190119101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Mackall v. Mackall · Hickman v. Green · Maddox v. Maddox · Wells v. Wells · Brinkman v. Rueggesick

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.

  1. ““Mrs. Scott had been the protege of the testator, who was wifeless and childless, since her infancy; she was the child of a dead sister, who left her to her uncle to raise, when she was only about two years old. After she grew to be large enough she lived in his house, nursed him, cared for him and ministered to his wants as if she were his own child. As was said in note to Small v. Small, 16 Am. Dec. 259 : ‘Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as undue, if no imposition or fraud be practiced, even though it induced the testator to make an unequal and unjust disposition of his property in favor of those who have contributed to his comfort and ministered to his wants, if such disposition is voluntarily made.’ (In Re Gleespin’s Will, 26 N. J. Eq. 523). Again, in Mackall v. Mackall, 135 U. S. 167 , it is said: ‘It would be a great reproach to the law if, in its jealous watchfulness over the freedom of testamentary disposition, it would deprive age and infirmity of the kindly ministrations of affection, or of the power of rewarding those who bestow them.’ (Campbell v. Carlisle, 162 Mo. 634 .) Nor were there any such relations existing between the testator and the devisees in the will as to cast upon the latter the burden of showing that the will was executed without undue influence upon her part. ’ ’”
    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.