Dickerson v. Yarbrough’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1995
6 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 Nye v. Bradford · Rastetter v. . Hoenninger · Chadwick v. Bristow · Federal Land Bank v. Little · Larrabee v. Porter
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A joint will is a single testamentary instrument which contains the wills of two or more persons, is executed jointly by them, and disposes of property owned jointly, in common, or severally by them. A mutual will is one executed pursuant to an agreement between two or more persons to dispose of their property in a particular manner, each in consideration of the other. If the testators name each other as beneficiaries, the wills are reciprocal. Two or more wills may be mutual without being joint. A joint and mutual will must be the will of two or more persons contained in a single testamentary instrument, jointly executed by them pursuant to an agreement to dispose of their respective estates to each other or to third parties. Although the initial execution of the will may categorize it as joint and mutual[,] nevertheless, it cannot be given effect as such while one party survives, but, as to him, it will be given effect as his separate will.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bishop v. Scoggins““It is the will and desire of each of us [C. H. Payton and wife, Martha Payton] that whichever one of us shall survive the other shall have and hold all of our property of which we or either of us may die seized and possessed . . .. And it is our joint desire and request that at the death of such survivor our said estate shall be equally divided between the nearest of kin to the said C. H. Payton and the said Martha Payton. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bishop v. Scoggins
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.