Tate v. Chumbley’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Ritz v. Kingdon (1953), 139 W. Va. 189 - Ritz v. Kingdon (1953)
5 federal appellate · 24 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 Kerr v. Lunsford · Keely v. Moore · McMechen v. McMechen · Ward v. Brown · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Rison
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.
“"Neither sickness nor impaired intellect is sufficient, standing alone, to render a will invalid. If at the time of its execution the testatrix was capable of recollecting her property, the natural objects of her bounty and their claims upon her, knew the business about which she was engaged and how she wished to dispose of her property, that is sufficient."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While there is a presumption that every person is competent until such person has been declared incompetent, the jury should consider in determining whether Nancy L. Bodwell was competent to make a will on October 14, 1978 that pending at that time was a proceeding in the Norfolk Circuit Court in which an order was entered February 2, 1979 declaring her incapacitated and appointing a guardian of her funds, along with all of the other evidence introduced in the case, and determine from all of the evidence whether Nancy L. Bodwell on October 14, 1978 had testamentary capacity to execute a will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gibbs v. Gibbs“After a sentence or order under this section, or under section fifty-two hundred and forty-nine, a person interested, who was not a party to the proceeding, may proceed by bill in equity to impeach or establish the will, * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hall v. Brigstocke
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.