33 Tenn. App. 507 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2016
15 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 Couch v. Texas Pacific Railway Co. · 23 Tenn. App. 690 - Pulley v. Cartwright · Howell v. Moore · 26 Tenn. App. 344 - Shelton v. Hickman · 29 Tenn. App. 438 - Northcross v. Taylor
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the .animus testandi be doubtful, all the facts or circumstances may be looked to, and it is for the jury to determine from all the evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, whether or not the testator intended the instrument to operate as his will. Sizer’s Pritchard on the Law of Wills and Administration, Section 232; Crutcher v. Crutcher, supra [ 30 Tenn. 377 ]; Marr v. Marr, supra [ 39 Tenn. 303 ]; Hopper [Hooper] v. McQuarry, supra [ 45 Tenn. 129 ]; McCutcheon [McCutchen] v. Ochmig, supra [ 60 Tenn. 390 ]; [R. B.] Douglass [& Co.] v. Harkrender, supra [ 62 Tenn. 114 ]; Reagan v. Stanley, 79 Tenn. 316 ; Pulley v. Cartwright, 23 Tenn. App. 690 , 137 S.W. 2d 336 .””
2 later decisions 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.