Schmidt v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably Ginter v. Ginter (1909), Stormon v. Weiss (1954)
39 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 William Parsons v. Bedford Breedlove · State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. · Whitney v. Twombly · Board of County Commissioners v. Morrison · In re the Probate of the Will of Nelson
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * It is elementary law that mere mental and physical weakness, caused by age or sickness, does not amount to mental incapacity, provided the party is capable of fairly and reasonably understanding the matter in hand.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The test as to what constitutes a sound and disposing mind is that the testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effect; that is, shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing, and be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims of others upon his bounty to which he ought to give effect. Soundness of mind, such as will enable a person to make a will, has relation to the business to be transacted, viz., the disposition of his property. He must be able to understand and carry in his mind in a general way the nature and situation of his property, and his relations to those who would naturally have some claim to his remembrance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. Murray““Undue influence, such as will invalidate a will, must be something which destroys the free agency of the testator at the time when the instrument is made, and which, in effect, substitutes the will of another for that of the testator.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. Murray
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.