Gibson v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
4 F.2d 874 · 1925
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1942
10 federal appellate ·
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 Mackall v. Mackall · Conley v. Nailor · Rugan v. Sabin · Stewart's v. Lispenard · Jackson ex. rel. Cadwell v. King
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Actions betraying gratitude for services rendered or to be rendered to an aged person under the circumstances here detailed, and the relations which had existed between the mother, her son, and daughter-in-law over a period of 25 years, do not constitute undue influence. As the court said in Mackall v. Mackall, 135 U.S. 167 , 172, 10 S.Ct. 705 , 707 ( 34 L.Ed. 84 ): ‘It would be a great reproach to the law if, in its jealous watchfulness over the freedom of testamentary disposition, it should deprive age and infirmity of the kindly ministrations of affection, or of the power of rewarding those who bestow them.’ And in Conley v. Nailor, 118 U.S. 127 , 134, 6 S.Ct. 1001 , 1005 ( 30 L.Ed. 112 ) the court in announcing the rule said: ‘The undue influence for which a will or deed will be annulled must be such as, that the party making it has no free will, but stands in vinculis.’ The situation disclosed in the present case falls far short of meeting the heavy burden cast upon the plaintiffs in attempting to establish the invalidity of the deed upon the theory that it was executed as the result of undue influence exerted upon the mother. “The rule is no less stringent on the question of lack of mental capacity. As was said by Judge Sanborn in Ludwig v. Bressler, 253 F. 8 , 11, 165 C.C.A. 28 , 31: ‘The question of the mental capacity of an aged or feeble person to dispose of her property is not whether or not the powers of her mind were impaired, or whether or not she had ordinary ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Smith
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.