Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 WVA 168 - Buckey v. Buckey

Buckey v. Buckey’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
4
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Delaplain v. Grubb (1898), Woodville v. Woodville (1908)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 state decisions

601893190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kerr v. Lunsford · Jarrett v. Jarrett · 20 W. Va. 251 - Nicholas v. Kershner · Anderson v. Cranmer · Maddox v. Simmons & Griffin

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The presumption of law is that the grantor in a deed was sane and competent to execute it at the time of its execution. “Old age is not of itself sufficient evidence of incapacity to make a deed. “The evidence of an officer taking the acknowledgment to a deed, or of a person present at its execution, is entitled! to peculiar weight in considering the grantor’s capacity. “The time of the execution of a deed is the material or critical point of time to be considered upon the inquiry as to the grantor’s capacity. “A grantor, in a deed may be extremely old, his understanding, memory, and mind enfeebled and weakened by age, and his action occasionally strang-e and eccentric, and he may not be able to transact many affairs of life; yet if age.has not rendered him imbecile, so that he does not know the nature and effect of the deed, this does not invalidate the deed. If he be capable, at the time, to know the nature, character, and effect of the particular act, that is sufficient to sustain it.””
    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.