Hancock v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2014
10 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 Mindler v. Crocker · McCutchen v. Loggins · Smith v. Bryant · Mathews v. Forniss · Smith v. Young
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[What is currently § 43-8-202, Ala.Code 1975,] ... provides that on the trial before the jury, or before the circuit judge on a contest in equity, the testimony of the witnesses which had been reduced to writing by the judge of . probate according to [what is currently § 43-8-169, Ala.Code 1975,] is'to be considered by the judge or jury. That should be shown in the note of testimony, when a note is necessary. But on such contest the judgment of the probate court has no probative value, and only serves to give direction to the order of procedure in the circuit court in equity and support for equity jurisdiction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While we have seen no statement by this court as to the exact manner in which trials should be had under the provisions of § 64, Title 61, Code of 1940 [now § 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975], providing for a will contest in the equity court, we would say that the respondent, who is in effect the proponent, should first introduce the proceedings in the probate court, that is the petition to probate the will, the order fixing the time for hearing and giving notice, testimony of the attesting witnesses and proof of will, the decree admitting the will to probate and the will itself. Section 44, Title 61, Code of 1940 [now § 43-8-171, Ala.Code 1975], provides in effect that a will which has been admitted to probate must be received without further proof. The complainant, who is in effect the contestant,- should then introduce testimony on which the alleged invalidity of the will is based. The respondent should then introduce the rebuttal testimony, if any.. The respondent should then make the opening argument to the jury, the complainant should then make the argument for complainant and the respondent should have the closing argument.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dorough v. Ricks
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.