Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 660 S.W.2d 55 - Croucher v. Croucher

Croucher v. Croucher’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

399
cited by 399 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

397 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 399 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis (2001), Transport Insurance Co. v. Faircloth (1995)

397 state decisions

19901983199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso))

Relationships

Relies on O'NEIL v. MacK Trucks, Inc. · In Re Price's Estate · Lee v. Lee · Reynolds v. Park · W. H. Hodges & Co. of Alexandria v. Donley County State Bank of Clarendon

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

  1. “against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Evidence of incompetency at other times may be used to establish incompetency on the day the will was executed if it “demonstrates that the condition persists and ‘has some probability of being the same condition which obtained at the time of the will’s making.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he fact that the will was self-proved does not shift the burden [to the contestants] because the contest was filed before the will was admitted to probate.”
    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.