Janzen v. Claybrook’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2025
5 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 Moramarco v. Moramarco · In Re the Estate of Calvin · Day v. Williams
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.
“. . . fraudulently destroyed in the lifetime of the testator . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the demurrer of the contestants to the evidence of the proponent of the will, it was alleged that the evidence wholly failed to establish by two credible witnesses, (1) the execution of the will; (2) that the will was in existence at or after the death of the testator; and (3) the contents of the will as provided by law. It was the contention of the protestants that each of these requirements must be clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses. It is the contention of the proponent that it is only the provisions of the will that is required to be proven by two credible witnesses. “There is no provision in section 1118, O.S.1931, 58 Okl.St.Ann. § 82, supra, that requires proof by two witnesses of the execution of a lost will or of its existence at the time of the death of testa tor. Sufficient testimony to convince the court of the fact is all that is required, and the court is in no way bound to accept uncontradicted testimony. The requirement of the proof of at least two credible witnesses applies only to the provisions of the lost will which must be clearly and distinctly proven.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““I. The Trial Court erred in sustaining Appellee’s Petition for probate of Lost Will in that the presumption of Intestacy was not overcome as required by the Statutes and Laws of the State of Oklahoma. “II. The Trial Court erred in sustaining Appellee’s Petition for probate of Lost Will in that the purported Lost Will was not proved to be in existence at the time of the death of the Decedent as required by the Statutes and Laws of the State of Oklahoma. “III. The Court erred in sustaining Appellee’s Petition for probate of Lost Will in that the provisions of the purported Lost Will were not clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses as required by the Statutes and Laws of the State of Oklahoma.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.