30 Tenn. App. 628 - Cude v. Culberson’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably 155 Ill. 2d 402 - In Re Estate of Hoover (1993), Bearman v. Camatsos (1964)
2 federal appellate · 70 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 Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland · Bryan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. · Estate of Carson · Clevenger v. Mayfield
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The mere dogmatic assertion which does not appeal to the reason of the court, which does not have substantial and relevant consequence, which does not have fitness to induce conviction, is not proof even if uncontradicted, and does not interfere with the duty of the court to direct a verdict." Cude v. Culberson, 30 Tenn. App. 640 , 209 S.W.2d 506 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This rule is that there can be no exercise of the power to direct a verdict in any case where there is a dispute as to any material evidence, or any legal doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from the whole evidence, upon the issue to be tried.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘ ‘ The mental condition of the testator at the very time the will was executed is the question in issue, but in ascertaining this condition at that time, evidence of his mental and physical condition before and after making the will is received within reasonable limitations. His appearance, conduct, conversation and declarations, together with any well marked change of character or habits without sufficient cause, and any other particular fact or. facts from which the condition of the testator’s mind at the time in question may be inferred, are competent on the issue of testamentary capacity. Bridges v. Agee, 15 Tenn. App. 351, 355, 356 ; Sizer’s Pritchard, Sec. 111; Note 68 A. L. R. 1311, 1315.””
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.