Anderson v. Meadowcroft’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Eastman (1996), State v. Flansburg (1997)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 K & K Management, Inc. v. Chul Woo Lee · Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc. · Latham v. Father Divine · MacKlin v. Robert Logan Associates · 97 Ill. 2d 174 - Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““there is an obvious difference between a gift whereby the donor strips himself of the enjoyment of his property while living and a gift by will, which takes effect only from the death of the testator. In cases of gifts by will the fact that a party is largely benefited by a will prepared by himself is nothing more than a suspicious circumstance of more or less weight according to the facts of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the cases of gifts or other transactions inter vivos, it is considered by courts of equity, that the natural influence which such relations as those in question involve, exerted by those who possess it, to obtain a benefit for themselves, is an undue influence. The law regarding wills is very different from this. The natural influence of the parent or guardian over the child, or the husband over the wife, or the attorney over the client, may lawfully be exerted to obtain a will or legacy, so long as the testator thoroughly understands what he is doing, and is a free agent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. The benefactor and beneficiary are involved in a relationship of confidence and trust; 2. The will contains substantial benefit to the beneficiary; 3. The beneficiary caused or assisted in effecting execution of the will; 4. There was an opportunity to exert influence; 5. The will contains an unnatural disposition; 6. The bequests constitute a change from a former will; and 7. The testator was highly susceptible to the undue influence.”
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.