Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 TEX 281 - Hopf v. State

Hopf v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1888

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
November 1976
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 1976 · most notably Aschenbeck v. Aschenbeck (1933), Massey v. Allen (1923)

33 state decisions

1001888189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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.

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

  1. ““The statute further provides the mode of proof when all the subscribing witnesses are dead, or when the will was wholly written by the testator, but none of the statutory provisions on the subject forbid the introduction of other than the statutory proof; and cases may arise in which it would-be the duty of a court to probate a will even in opposition to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses. “If from defect of memory or from corrupt purpose subscribing witnesses should be unable or unwilling to testify to the facts bearing on the due execution of a will, this ought not to be permitted to defeat the will if other evidence admissible under the ordinary rules of law to establish facts be introduced sufficient to satisfy the court ‘that the testator executed the will with the formalities and solemnities and under the ' circumstances, required by law to make a valid 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.