Stormon v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 state decisions

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

1. “Testator must have sufficient strength and clearness of mind and memory, to know, in general, without prompting, the nature and extent of the property of which he is about to dispose, and nature of the act which he is about to perform and the names and identity of the persons who are to be the objects of his bounty, and his relation towards them. He must have sufficient mind and memory to understand all of these facts;.... He must also be able to appreciate the relations of these factors to one another, and to recollect the decision which he has formed.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schmidt v. Frank · Matter of Estate of Stanton

2. ““A testator, not subjected to undue influence, may dispose of his property as he wishes without regard to the desires of prospective beneficiaries or the views of juries or courts. “Every testator has the right to change the manner of disposing of his property, and in the absence of undue influence, his changed will is valid. “A Will must be a true expression of the testator’s wishes. If, instead, it is the product of undue influence of another, it must be denied probate on that ground. To be ‘undue,’ the influence must amount to coercion destroying free agency of the testator, substituting for his own another’s will and compelling the testator to make a disposition he would not otherwise have made. “The word ‘undue’ should be emphasized, because the law does not condemn all influence. It condemns only that degree of intrusion which destroys the testator’s own judgment and volition. Accordingly, probate will not be denied because a testator was influenced by affection, gratitude, family and personal relationships, or ordinary advice and argument. These motivating factors commonly enter into a testator’s consideration and are proper, because they do not deprive the testator of his own free will. “The elements necessary to be established to warrant the rejection of a will on the ground of undue influence are: “One, that the testator was subject to such influence; and “Two that the opportunity to exercise it existed; and “Three, that there was a disposition to exercise it; and “”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of Estate of Wagner · Matter of Estate of Ambers

3. ““Few challenges to the validity of wills on the ground of undue influence have reached this court. We have never considered whether a presumption of undue influence arises from the fact that an attorney draws a will under which he takes a substantial benefit. We have no statutory presumption applicable to this situation. Our careful study of the cases and texts dealing with this question leads us to the conclusion that we should not by judicial precedent establish a rule that a presumption of undue influence invariably arises from the fact that a will is drawn for a client by an attorney who becomes a major beneficiary under the will. The conditions under which such wills might be drawn could conceivably differ so greatly that such a presumption in one case would serve the ends of justice but in another would be an impelling force in the creation of injustice.” Stormon v. Weiss, 65 N.W.2d 475, 517 (N.D. 1954). 7”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of Estate of Wagner · Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Amundson