Kastner v. Husband’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The requirements of sound-mindedness or mental competency, as used in ORS 114.020, have been frequently stated by this court and may be summarized as follows: (1) the person must be able to understand the nature of the act in which he is engaged; (2) know the nature and extent of his property; (3) know, without prompting, the claims, if any, of those who are, should or might be, the natural objects of his bounty; and (4) be cognizant of the scope and reach of the provisions of the document. If the foregoing conditions are found to prevail at the time of executing the instrument, the testator is deemed to have sufficient capacity to make a will. Re Phillips' Will, 107 Or. 612, 618 , 213 P. 627 (1923); In Re Walther's Estate, 177 Or. 382, 386 , 163 P.2d 285 (1945); In Re Estate of Hill, 198 Or. 307, 317 , 256 P.2d 735 (1953).' Kastner v. Husband, 231 Or. 133, 136 , 372 P.2d 520, 522 (1962).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Martin