Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 761 SW2D 718 - McMullin v. Borgers

McMullin v. Borgers’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
7
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2015

19 state decisions

1101988199020002010decided

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 97 Ill. 2d 174 - Robinson v. First State Bank of Monticello · DeWitt v. Duce · Basman v. Frank · Moore v. Graybeal · 160 Ill. App. 3d 964 - In Re Estate of Hoover

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

  1. “Allowing an action for tortious interference in a situation such as this would merely encourage plaintiffs to forego the proper remedy of a will contest based on undue influence for the more lucrative damage options available in a tort action. Such a result would offend the goals of the undue influence action which seeks to implement the true intentions of the testator. Where, as in this ease, a will contest provides essentially the same remedy and prevents any additional damages, we hold that an action for tortious interference will not lie.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A majority of courts recognizing the action [tortious interference with an expected inheritance], including Missouri, have refused to allow the tort action unless plaintiff first tries to obtain an adequate remedy in the probate court or shows that it is impossible to obtain an adequate remedy in a probate action. Those courts reason that the probate code provides for the exclusive forum in which to litigate matters involving an expectation under a will or by intestate succession, and if a tort action is allowed when there is an adequate remedy available in a probate proceeding, this constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the authority and jurisdiction of the probate court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “tortious interference will lie where plaintiff could not discover the fraud until the probate period had run, where plaintiff was unable to establish a maliciously destroyed will, or where defendant tor-tiously induced an inter-vivos transfer of estate assets.”
    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.