Miller v. Whittington’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably Willingham v. State (1954), Lewis v. Martin (1923)
77 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 Parrish v. State · Councill v. Mayhew · Coghill v. Kennedy · Bancroft v. Otis · Reaves v. Maybank
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that, on the issue as to testamentary capacity, a witness, whether expert or not, cannot testify that the testator was or was not capable of making a will, because, as it is said, this is the very issue to be submitted to the jury. Walker v. Walker, 34 Ala. 469, 473 ; Hall v. Perry, 87 Me. 569 , 33 Atl. 160 , 47 Am. St. Rep. 352 ; 28 A. & E, Ency. Law, 102. * * * The -only exception to the rule stated is on the cross-examination of a witness who has testified as to the sanity or insanity of the testator, and then only to test the witness, and not to thus establish the fact. Dominick v. Randolph, 124 Ala. 557, 564 , 27 South. 481 .” Torrey v. Burney, 113 Ala. 496 , 21 South. 348 ; 2 Jones on Ev. § 365 (367).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chandler v. Chandler““Where there has been a long and intimate acquaintance with another, furnishing opportunity for the formation of correct judgment as to the mental condition of such person, a witness may give his opinion that the person ‘is of sound mind,’ since sanity' is the normal condition of mankind, The general rule would not permit this witness, though an attesting witness to the purported will, to testify that the party executing the will had testamentary capacity at the time of its execution. The reason on which the rule is rested is that such issue of fact must be submitted to the judge or the jury trying the same, that they may draw the inference.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chandler v. Chandler
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.