Perschbacher v. Moseley’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Tsosie v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company (1967), Gray v. EJ Longyear Company (1967)
29 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on International Traveler's Ass'n v. Bettis · Hepp v. Quickel Auto & Supply Co. · Adams v. Tatsch · Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 · Padilla v. Winsor
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere intention alone, no matter how unequivocable, is not sufficient to effect the revocation of such a solemn instrument.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n addition to accounting for non-production of the original instrument, the proponent of a missing will must prove its due execution, its contents, and facts or circumstances showing its nonrevocation. [Citations omitted.] The proponent must prove his case by evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing, but it need not be free from doubt. [Citations omitted.] It will be presumed that the instrument was destroyed by the testator with the intention of revoking it if the proponent fails to give an explanation for the absence of a will which was in the testator's possession or in a place to which he had ready access. Perschbacher v. Moseley, 75 N.M. 252 , 403 P.2d 693 (1965).”
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.