Olds v. Traylor’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently July 1980 · most notably Rothermel v. Duncan (1963), Lyle v. Bentley (1969)
2 federal appellate · 83 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 Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Wininger v. Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Co. · Long v. Long · Texas Ry Co v. Cox · Prather v. McClelland
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . In Olds v. Taylor, 180 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1944, writ ref’d), the court stated: ‘Where the facts are controverted, or are such that different inferences may be reasonably drawn therefrom, an issue of fact is raised; it is only where the evidence is harmonious and consistent, and the circumstances permit of but one conclusion, that the question becomes one of law for the determination of the Court. An issue of fact is raised ‘if, discarding all adverse evidence, and giving credit to all evidence favorable to the plaintiff, and indulging every legitimate conclusion favorable to the plaintiff which might have been drawn from the facts proved, a jury might have found in favor of the plaintiff.’ ””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““Such issue is proved only when it is shown that such influence was exercised, and that it subverted and overpowered the will of the grantor and caused the execution of a conveyance which the grantor would not have executed but for such influence. Declarations of the grantor after the execution and delivery of a deed are not competent evidence to prove that such conveyance resulted from the exercise of undue influence upon such grantor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““These facts and circumstances, standing alone, are not sufficient to raise the issue of undue influence, in view of the record before us, because, in our opinion, there was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that any undue influence was exercised on the testator, or was operating on his will, at the time he executed the instrument under attack.” 180 S.W.2d at 516 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lyle v. Bentley
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.