2001 Pa. Super. 253 - Cardenas v. Schober’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 2007 Pa. Super. 133 - Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP (2007), Steiner v. Markel (2009)
3 federal appellate · 54 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 Guy v. Liederbach · 351 Pa. Super. 264 - Burnside v. Abbott Laboratories · 1999 Pa. Super. 14 - Corestates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo · 332 Pa. Super. 48 - Bartanus v. Lis · 99 Ill. App. 3d 493 - Nemeth v. Banhalmi
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The testator indicated an intent to change his will to provide a described benefit for plaintiff, (2) The defendant used fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence to prevent execution of the intended will, (3) The defendant was successful in preventing the execution of a new will; and (4) But for the Defendant’s [sic] conduct, the testator would have changed his will.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer require the court to resolve the issues solely on the basis of the pleadings; no testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be considered to dispose of the legal issues presented by the demurrer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, as appellants admit, the documents, or testamentary writings, written by Ms. Harper do not constitute an “otherwise valid will.” Gregg, supra. In Guy , our Supreme Court indicated third party beneficiary status was appropriate for the plaintiff because in that case, the attorney who drafted the will directed the plaintiff to be a subscribing witness which voided her legacy. However, the will was an otherwise legally valid will in that it was executed by the decedent with due formalities and clearly set forth the decedent’s intent to benefit the named legatees. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff, a legatee, should not be precluded from recovering against the attorney because of a lack of privity between the legatee and attorney. Here, there is no question that the documents written by Ms. Harper, which evidence her intent to give -appellants more than that which was indicated in her probated will, do not constitute an “otherwise valid will.” Appellants admit, and there is no doubt, these documents lack the requisite formalities prescribed for the execution of a valid will. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 2502. Appellants contend these documents were to be transformed into a legally valid will by appel-lee. This is insufficient to meet the requirement that there must be an otherwise valid 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.