McComas v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We must disagree with appellants that the court permitted incompetent evidence, to be introduced upon behalf of appellees. Cleveland Hensley and Tilden Hensley, half brothers of testator’s wife, testified as to certain statements made to them by testator several years after he executed his will to the effect that his wife would not allow him to give any part of his property to the children of his deceased daughter, Mrs. Hull. Such declarations by the testator were not competent whether made before or after the execution of the will as direct and ■substantive evidence of undue influence or to show that the will was procured thereby, but are only admissible to show testator’s mental condition at the time of making the will and his susceptibility to the influence of his wife. Wall v. Dimmitt, 114 Ky. 923 , 72 S. W. 300 , 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1749 ; Wilson v. Taylor, 167 Ky. 162 , 180 S. W. 45 ; Mullins v. Mullins, 229 Ky. 103 , 16 S. W. (2d) 788 . That this rule is in harmony with text writers and with decisions of other courts may he seen from an examination of 6 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.) pages 119, 121, 123, sec. 1738, and annotation in 79 A. L. R. 1447. Therefore, this evidence was not incompetent and the record does not show appellants asked the court to admonish the jury that they should not consider it as substantive evidence on the question of undue influence but only as to testator’s susceptibility to such influence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Welch's Adm'r v. Clifton