Kappenman v. Stroh’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 2013
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co. · Behrens v. Wedmore · Veeder v. Kennedy · First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. · Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Electric Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish the existence of undue influence, the contestant must prove by the greater convincing force of the evidence four elements: (1) That at the time the Will under question was prepared and signed by Kenneth Due-bendorfer, he was susceptible to undue influence; (2) That the Respondents, Randy Moller and Kathy Moller, had sufficient opportunity to exert such influence and effect the wrongful purpose; (3) That the Respondents, Randy Moller and Kathy Moller, had a disposition to do so for an improper purpose; and (4) That a result was produced in the April 10, 2002, Will, which shows the effects of such influence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[This Court] construe[s] jury instructions as a whole to learn if they provided a full and correct statement of the law. If, as a whole, the instructions misled, conflicted, or confused, then reversible error occurred. The party charging that an instruction was given in error has the dual burden of showing that the instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. An erroneous instruction is prejudicial if in all probability it produced some effect upon the verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The initial ruling by itself preserves nothing for appeal. To claim error based on the denial of a motion in li-mine, the trial court must allow, over renewed objection, that which the moving party sought to exclude to be presented to the jury. Where an in limine motion is denied but the evidence, argument, or reference is subsequently entered in the record without objection, there is no appealable issue, no reversible error.”
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.