Lare Will’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 1982 · most notably Quein Will (1948), Higbee Will (1950)
63 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 Pusey's Estate · Cutler's Estate · Phillips' Estate · Tetlow's Estate · Phillips's Estate
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In human affairs we accept as true those things which are highly probable and as untrue those things which are highly 'improbable. Thayer in his ‘Treatise on Evidence,’ says, p. 272: ‘What is called the “legal mind” is still the human mind, and it must reason according to the laws of its constitution.’ That Mrs. Lare ever wrote the will her husband presented for probate is so highly improbable that only an immature and gullible mind would believe it. The following are some of the circumstances which convince me that this will is a fraud: “1. While, of course, a will can be written on a bank check form, it is so unusual for anyone to do so when ample paper is available and there is no necessity to write a will on a bank check form, that when an alleged will so written is offered for probate it naturally excites suspicion as to its genuineness. Before it is accepted as a will there ought to be some plausible explanation as to why the alleged testator chose to write a will on such a small piece of paper, and on the side of it which contained printed matter instead of the side of it which was blank . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . It is the function of the hearing judge to determine whether there is a substantial dispute upon a material matter of fact. He is not, however, to constitute himself the jury. If a substantial dispute does exist, even though the verdict might be at variance with the opinion of the judge, the issue must be granted.” (Italics supplied)”
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.