Denson v. Moses’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. ““Section § 38.04 of the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions provides: “ ‘MENTAL CAPACITY-DEFINITION “ ‘The law presumes that every person of legal age has sufficient mental capacity to make a valid will. “‘A person may be feeble, weak-minded or capricious and still have (mental) (testamentary) capacity to make a will if he is able to have a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of his property. “ ‘The court will now define what is required to have the mental capacity to make a will, which is known as testamentary capacity. “‘The testator must have at the time of the execution of the will memory of mind sufficient to recall and understand: “‘1. The property he is about to bequeath or devise. “ ‘2. The objects of his bounty. “‘3. The disposition he desires to make of his property. “ ‘4. The nature and consequences of the business to be performed. “ ‘5. The relation of these elements to each other.’ “2 Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions Civil § 38.04 (2d ed. 1993) (emphasis added). See also Ex parte Helms, 873 So.2d 1139, 1147 (Ala.2003) (“‘Simply stated, if the testator knows his estate and to whom he wishes to give his property and understands that he is executing a will, he has testamentary capacity. A person may execute a valid will, even if he or she is not competent to transact ordinary, everyday affairs.” ’ (quoting Smith v. Vice, 641 So.2d 785, 786 (Ala.1994))); Fletcher v. DeLoach, 360 So.2d 316 (Ala.1978); and Horton v. Rasberry, 852 So.2d 155 (Ala.Civ.App.200”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Still v. Banktrust

2. ““In Fletcher v. DeLoach, 360 So.2d 316 (Ala.1978), the Court described in detail the broad evidentiary inquiry that must be made when testamentary capacity is at issue: “ ‘ “Evidence is competent to prove conduct and language at various times and places indicating an unhealthy mental condition, and the more extensive the view the safer is the determination reached.” ‘“[Tucker v. Tucker, 248 Ala. 602, 610 , 28 So.2d 637, 644 (1946).] Thus, evidence offered as to the mental and physical condition of the testatrix, either before or immediately after execution of the will, is admissible since it tends to indicate her condition when the will was signed. Likewise, testimony regarding the testatrix’s “conversations, deportment, acts, and appearance” has been found to be competent on the issue of testamentary capacity.’ “360 So.2d at 318 (citations omitted). The Fletcher Court also noted that the reasonableness of a will’s provisions, when considered in light of the state of family relationships, may reflect on the testatrix’s capacity to recall the objects of her bounty.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Still v. Banktrust