Cameron v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
151 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably In Re the Estate of Bradshaw (2001), Christensen v. Britton (1989)
151 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 Morton v. Mooney · Hellickson v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. · Olson v. Westfork Properties, Inc. · Campeau v. Lewis · Hornung v. Estate of Lagerquist
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) Confidential relationship of the person attempting to influence the testator; “(2) The physical condition of the testator as it affects his ability to withstand influence; “(3) The mental condition of the testator as it affects his ability to withstand the influence; “(4) The unnaturalness of the disposition as it relates to showing an unbalanced mind or a mind easily susceptible to undue influence, and “(5) The demands and importunities as they may affect the particular donor taking into consideration the time, the place, and all the surrounding circumstances.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, but rather will only consider whether substantial credible evidence supports the findings and conclusions. Those findings will not be overturned by this Court unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence against them. We will view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, recognizing that substantial evidence may be weak or conflicting with other evidence, yet still support the findings.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although conflicts may exist in the evidence presented, it is the duty of the trial judge to resolve such conflicts. His findings will not be disturbed on appeal where they are based on substantial though conflicting evidence, unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence against such findings. [Olson v. Westfork Properties, Inc. 1976), 171 Mont. 154 , 557 P.2d 821, 823 , 33 St.Rep. 1133 ]: Butte Teachers’ Union v. Board of Education of School District No. 1, Silver Bow County (1977), Mont. [ 173 Mont. 215 ], 567 P.2d 51, 53 , 34 St.Rep. 726 ; Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P.””
2 later decisions 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.