Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 Va. 459 - Hall v. Brigstocke

Hall v. Brigstocke’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2016

7 state decisions

201950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Tate v. Chumbley · Warwick v. Warwick · Hamlet v. Hamlet · Dinning v. Dinning · McElroy v. Rolston

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

  1. ““Roberta Leckie Rittenhouse Written by myself October 13th 1946 My Will The few things I have left to be given to Mrs. Harry F. Byrd This is my last Will and Testament—””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) There be a finality of testamentary intent and that the testamentary paper be executed in accordance with the statute. (2) There be a concurrence of the testamentary intent to make a will (animus testandi) and the intention to sign the instrument as and for a will (animus signandi). (3) The finality of the testamentary intent be ascertained from the face of the paper, extrinsic evidence being not admissible either to prove or disprove it. (4) While the statute does not require the signature of a will to appear at the foot or end of the instrument, the signing elsewhere manifestly appear to be intended as a signature from the face of the instrument, by internal evidence equally convincing as the signing at the foot or end.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he will itself is sufficient to show that the name was manifestly intended as a signature. It shows upon its face the finality of the instrument and the intent of the testatrix to make a will, and ... to sign as required by the statute. It is a complete document which disposes of all of the testatrix’s property and contains no blanks or anything that would indicate that it was not her last will and testament. . . . When the last sentence of the will ... is considered with the first paragraph, it is manifest that she intended her name as a signature to her will.”
    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.