Black v. Richmond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Q. You understand that what Mr. Richmond is going to tell us is that Lois went and talked to Henrietta, and whatever Henrietta told her satisfied your mother. That's what Mr. Richmond is going to say. A. Okay. Q. Do you have any evidence or can you name any persons or show me any documents that would be contrary to that assertion by Mr. Richmond? A. No. Q. So when you say that your mother was misled, you don't know she was misled? A. No, I do not. Q. And you have no way of proving she was misled? A. No. Q. And if you know, what documents or persons would you have at the time of trial that would establish that there was misrepresentation? A. I don't know. .... Q. (MR. COLES CONTINUING) You don't know the names of any persons that would be witnesses that would support you in your allegation? A. Not at this time. Q. And what effort have you done to locate witnesses? Who have you interviewed, or who have you taken statements from that you know of? A. No one. .... A. I felt that my mother was not married to Mr. Richmond. Q. Let's talk about that. What difference does that make? Let's just assume that Mr. Richmond didn't divorce Henrietta. Your mother and Mr. Richmond lived together as husband and wife, sharing the same roof, helping each other, supporting each other, providing for each other for over 20 years. Now, isn't it entirely possible that your mother put Mr. Richmond in her will and named him as the beneficiary on the life insurance based on her love and affection for him ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Richmond

2. “Black's only evidence to support the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation is the inability for either party to produce a divorce decree or judgment. On the other hand, Richmond produces affidavits and deposition testimony indicating Lois knew of his prior marriage and that Lois had actually addressed the issue of the prior marriage before marrying Richmond. The further fact that Richmond and Lois were married for over twenty years is a factor to be considered in determining if such a marriage was based on fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by Richmond to inherit Lois's estate. This Court finds that based on the record before me, Black has failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of fraudulent misrepresentation and there are no genuine issues of material fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Richmond

3. “So she came and we called up Henrietta to make an appointment and she said yes, she'd see her. So I gave her the car because I'm at the show, so I showed her how to get out there. So when she came back, she told me, Well, I saw Henrietta, and Henrietta said the divorce is complete. She showed me some papers, and she's going to send me copies of them. So she said, You're divorced. She said, No sense in putting it off. Let's get married. So we got married.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Richmond