31 Tenn. App. 333 - Eslick v. Wodicka’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2012
7 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 Woodroof v. City of Nashville · 3 Smith & H. 155 - Epperson v. White · Thomason v. Trentham · 28 Tenn. App. 225 - Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co. v. McCowan Et Ux. · Fann v. Fann
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The execution of a will, other than a holographic or noncupative will, must be by the signature 8 of the testator and of at least two (2) witnesses as follows: (1) The testator shall signify to the attesting witnesses that the instrument is the testator’s will and either: (A) The testator sign; (B) Acknowledge the testator’s signature already made; or (C) At the testator’s direction and in the testator’s presence have someone else sign the testator’s name; and (D) In any of the above cases the act must be done in the presence of two (2) or more attesting witnesses. (2) The attesting witnesses must sign: (A) In the presence of the testator; and (B) In the presence of each other,”
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.