Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 VA 453 - Hamlet v. Hamlet

Hamlet v. Hamlet’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2017

2 district · 18 state decisions

4019451950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Warwick v. Warwick · Hatcher v. Hatcher · Dinning v. Dinning · Forrest v. Turner · Murguiondo v. Nowland's

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

  1. “[i]t is not sufficient to raise a doubt as to whether [the] name is intended to authenticate the paper which is propounded as a will, for, to use the explicit language of the statute, it must be signed 'in such a manner as to make it manifest that the name is intended as a signature,' and unless so signed it is not valid.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in such a manner as to make it manifest that the name is intended as a signature”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(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 · 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.