Caeman v. Van Harke’s Empirical Analysis
1885
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1956
17 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 Waterman v. . Whitney · Jackson ex dem. Coe v. Kniffen · Fishburn v. Jones
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A will shall be revoked ... by some other writing, signed, attested and subscribed in the manner provided by this act for the making of a will; . . .” (R. S. 22-241.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Toley v. Woodard · Derr v. Derr““They must first show the existence of such an instrument; that it was made in writing by the testator when he was of sound mind and memory; that it was signed by him at the end thereof, or by some person in his presence, and by his express direction and attested and subscribed in his presence by at least two competent witnesses who saw the testator subscribe or heard him acknowledge the same; and it must also appear that such instrument either in express terms revoked the former will, or that its provisions, in devising the property, were so far inconsistent with the earlier will that it would operate as a revocation.” (Caeman v. Van Harke, 33 Kan. 333, 336 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Kennedy““The plaintiffs claiming that the will in contest has been revoked and superseded by a later one, it is incumbent upon them, under the provisions of the statute last quoted [the revocation statute], to prove by competent testimony that the instrument of a later date, purporting to be a will and to have the effect of revoking an earlier one admitted to be valid, was executed with all the formality and solemnity prescribed by the statute in the making of a will.” (Caeman v. Van Harke, 33 Kan. 333, 336 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Kennedy
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.