Barbour v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . that neither age, sickness, nor extreme debility will affect the capacity of a person to make a valid will, if he retains sufficient mind and memory to know : “ ‘(1) What property he owns in a general way; (2) the person or persons who, would be the natural objects of his bounty and his relation towards them; and (3) the nature of the instrument he is executing; and if they believe from the evidence that Samuel E. Lewis possessed sufficient mentality to meet these requirements their verdict should sustain his will.’ ” [53 App.D.C. at page 261, 289 F. at page 919] The court had also instructed the jury: “ . . . that if the testator ‘did not have sufficient mind and memory to know in a general way the extent and nature of his property, and who were the natural objects of his bounty and their deserts, if any, with reference to their conduct toward him and their treatment of him, and what were their relative claims upon his bounty, if any, and necessities, and generally to understand the business he was engaged in when executing the paper writing in controversy in disposing of his property/ the jury should find want of testamentary capacity.” [53 App.D.C. at page 261, 289 F. at page 919]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson v. Smith

2. ““To make a valid will it is not necessary that the testator should be endowed with a high order of intellect, or even an intellect measuring up to the ordinary standards! of mankind. Nor is it necessary to the making of a valid will that the party should have a perfect memory, and that his mind should be wholly unimpaired by age, sickness or other infirmities. If the party possess memory and mind' enough to know what ■ property he owns and desires to dispose of, and the person or persons to whom he intends to give it, and the manner in which he wishes it applied by such person, and, generally, ' fully understands his purposes and the business he is engaged in, in so disposing of his property, he is, in contemplation of law, of sound and disposing mind.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewis v. American Security & Trust Co.

3. ““ * * ' * It is, however, extremely difficult tO' state in the abstract what acts will constitute undue influence in questions of this nature. It is sufficient to say, that allowing a fair latitude of construction, they must range themselves under one or other of these heads —coercion or fraud. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barone v. Williams