Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 Tenn. App. 651 - Whitlow v. Weaver

63 Tenn. App. 651 - Whitlow v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 1997
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Provident Washington Insurance Company v. Reese · Simmons v. Leonard · Fann v. Fann · 31 Tenn. App. 271 - Ball v. Miller · Beadles v. Alexander

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The meaning of this statute is clear, plain and unambiguous. When a testator calls upon persons to witness his will, “ ‘the testator shall signify to the attesting witnesses that the instrument in his will’.” Surely it cannot be contended that this provision of the statute is doubtful of meaning. It simply means that the testator must state to the witnesses in substance that the paper writing is his will and that he wants them to sign it as witnesses. By the uncontradicted evidence before us that essential requisite of the execution of a valid will is lacking. The testatrix did not signify to the attesting witnesses that the instrument was the will of testatrix.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “This is a proper case to announce the rule in Tennessee to be that proof of the genuine signatures of the testator and two competent attesting witnesses to a will along with an attestation clause reciting that the will was executed according to the Uniform Will Act [T.C.A. § 32-1-104] creates a re-buttable presumption of fact of due execution of the will and makes a prima facie case for the proponent. The testimony by the attesting witnesses denying the recitations of the attestation clause is admissible to rebut the presumption and makes it an issue for the jury to decide.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]e respectfully submit that [Justice Tomlinson’s] opinion in Fann v. Fann fails to delineate between the presumption of law obtaining by proof of a testator’s signature and two subscribing witnesses thereto with no attestation clause and the presumption of fact which arises upon proof of the signature of the testator and the signatures of the two attesting witnesses to a will containing an attestation clause which recites a statutory execution of the will.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.