Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 MISS 649 - Lang v. Jones

Lang v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2016

7 state decisions

301955196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lum v. Lasch · McMILLAN v. Gibson · Ward v. Ward · Exum v. Canty

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.

  1. “‘ ‘ The appellee had the advantage of being able to offer proof of the mental capacity of the grantor at the very times the deeds were executed, and this proof was to the effect that the grantor was mentally capable of understanding the nature and effect of the transactions. In this kind of case, the test is whether the grantor had mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of the transaction at the time the instrument was executed, and testimony relating to that particular time is entitled to the most weight. Lum v. Lasch, 93 Miss. 81 , 46 So. 559 ; Ward v. Ward, et al., 203 Miss. 32 , 33 So. 2d 294 ; Exum, et al. v. Zachariah, 34 Miss. 533 . The conflict in the testimony was for the determination of the chancellor, who resolved it in favor of appellee. Under the established rule that we will not reverse the chancellor on his findings of fact unless manifestly wrong, we must affirm the case.””
    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.