Ash v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Execution. — The execution of a will, other than holographic, must be by the signature of the testator and of at least two witnesses as follows: “a. Testator. The testator shall declare to the attesting witnesses that the instrument is his will and either “(1) Himself sign; or “(2) Acknowledge his signature already made; or “(3) Sign by mark, his name being written near it and witnessed by a person who writes his own name as witness to the signature; or “(4) At his discretion and in his presence have someone else sign his name for him, (the person so signing shall write his own name and state that he signed the testator’s name at the request of the testator) ; and “(5) In any of the above cases the signature must be *' * * done in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses. [Emphasis added] “b. Witnesses. The attesting witnesses must sign at the request and in the presence of the testator. [Acts 1949, No. 140, § 19, p. 304.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. Smith · Coleman v. Walls

2. ““It is essential to due execution of a will that it be signed or subscribed by the number of witnesses required by the law governing the particular will being made, and subscription by fewer renders the transaction a nullity.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shamoon v. Tombridge · Green v. Smith

3. ““We think it evident from the above admitted .facts that the sections of § 60-403 specifically requiring that a will to be valid must be executed ‘in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses... [and] the attesting witnesses must sign at the request and in the presence of the testator’, were not complied with, and therefore the will must be and is declared invalid. But, says appellant, there was substantial compliance with the statute here involved (Ark. Stats. § 60-403). What constitutes substantial compliance with a statute is a matter depending on the facts of each particular case. Here neither of the alleged attesting’ witnesses signed in the presence of the testator, nor in the presence of each other.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coleman v. Walls