Paskvan v. Mesich’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2021
1 district · 23 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 41 Cal. 2d 1 - Jamison v. Johnson · Dean v. Jordan · Succession of Schmidt · 92 Ill. App. 2d 88 - Swenson v. Wintercorn · 14 Wash. 2d 676 - In Re Bottger's Estate
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the principal or sole beneficiary under a will, who had a confidential relationship with the testator, participated in the drafting of the will, then a presumption of undue influence arises. It requires the beneficiary to come forward with a satisfactory explanation for his actions. He must show that he did not take advantage of the confidential relationship in influencing the testator to execute the will in his favor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mesich's actions in making Paskvan the managing partner in the Arctic Hotel enterprise, in giving Paskvan his power of attorney so that Paskvan could act and speak for Mesich, in executing his will in favor of Paskvan so that there would be a basis for their partnership venture, and in conveying to Pa-skvan a one-half interest in the Elbow Room property shows quite clearly that Mesich trusted Paskvan and reposed confidence in him-that he relied upon Paskvan to act in Mesich's best interests in handling his affairs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“None of these witnesses were seen or heard by the trial judge. They had testified only before the probate master and not at the hearing held by the superior court. The superior court judge had no greater opportunity than we to judge their credibility, since his only contacts with these witnesses was through the typed transcript of their testimony before the probate master. In this situation we are in as good a position as the trial judge to make a determination of fact based upon such testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Phillips
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.