Rogers v. Helmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]f a witness is not one of two essential witnesses to a will, the voiding provision of R.C. 2107.15 may not be invoked. Inasmuch as [Carol Helmes] was one of three competent witnesses to the controverted will, R.C. 2107.15 as amended is inapposite. By amending R.C. 2107.15 the General Assembly only voided bequests and devises to those interested witnesses whose attesting signatures were required to create a substantially valid will under R.C. 2107.03. If the substantive validity of a will would not be affected by the absence of an interested witness’ signature, then R.C. 2107.15 by its terms does not apply.” Id. at 330, 23 O.O.3d at 305, 432 N.E.2d at 190 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 Ohio App. 3d 671 - Hairelson v. Estate of Franks

2. “'all persons are competent witnesses except those of unsound mind, and children under ten years of age who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Naple v. Bednarik