Jackson v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “Evidence [offered to support a claim of] undue influence must provide at *Page 353 least a reasonable inference rather than mere suspicion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 767 So. 2d 347 - Burns v. Marshall · 482 So. 2d 1161 - Smith v. Smith

2. “The foregoing does not constitute sufficient evidence of undue influence. Indeed, *Page 1163 there was no evidence whatsoever that Mrs. Jackson pressured the testator, threatened him with abandonment, or in any way at any time forced or otherwise unduly influenced him to write his will in her favor. This Court has recently held no undue influence on a set of facts which far more seriously indicated potential undue influence than do the facts in the present case. In that case, Pruitt v. Pruitt , 343 So.2d 495 (Ala. 1977), we stated the following: Our cases have consistently held that when undue influence is asserted in a will contest, the contestant has the burden, in order to raise a presumption of undue influence, to prove a dominant confidential relationship and undue activity in the execution of the will by or for a favored beneficiary. Wilson v. Payton , 251 Ala. 411 , 37 So.2d 499 (1948), citing Hyde v. Norris , 250 Ala. 518 , 35 So.2d 181 (1948). In other words, evidence must establish: (1) a confidential relationship between a favored beneficiary and testator; (2) that the influence of or for the beneficiary was dominant and controlling in that relationship; and (3) undue activity on the part of the dominant party in procuring the execution of the will. Wilson v. Payton, supra; Alexander v. Alexander , 208 Ala. 291 , 94 So. 53 (1922).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 482 So. 2d 1161 - Smith v. Smith

3. “In the instant case, even assuming that there was a scintilla of evidence of a confidential relationship between Mrs. Jackson and the testator and that Mrs. Jackson was the dominant party in that relationship, there is no evidence that she unduly influenced the testator in drafting his will. Mrs. Jackson's observation of the will's execution and her answer to testator's request for a minor spelling correction does not constitute undue influence as there is no evidence that her presence tended to destroy the testator's free agency, nor does the fact that she lived in the same house with the testator while the will was being drafted and executed. "While this may have presented an opportunity to exercise influence, there is no showing of any activity on the part of [Mrs. Jackson] nor of undue influence per se," Arrington v. Working Woman's Home , 368 So.2d 851 , 854 (Ala. 1979) (emphasis original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 482 So. 2d 1161 - Smith v. Smith