Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 779 S.W.2d 384 - Mitchell v. Smith

Mitchell v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Otis v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (1993), Givens v. Mullikin Ex Rel. McElwaney (2002)

32 state decisions

1501989199020002010decided

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 Turner v. Leathers · 30 Tenn. App. 628 - Cude v. Culberson · Hayes v. Gill · 25 Tenn. App. 636 - Roberts v. Chase · 24 Tenn. App. 96 - Tallent v. Fox

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

  1. “The trial court’s instructions are the jury’s only proper source of the legal prin ciples to guide its deliberations. Accordingly, trial courts should give substantially accurate instructions concerning the law applicable to the matters at issue. The instructions need not be perfect in every detail, as long as they are, as a whole, correct, (citations omitted) [[Image here]] Trial courts should give a requested instruction if it satisfies three requirements: (1) it is supported by the evidence, (2) it embodies the party’s theory, and (3) it is a correct statement of the law. However, they need not give a special instruction whose substance is already covered in the general charge, (citations omitted)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(I) secrecy concerning the will’s existence; (2) the testator’s advanced age; (3) the lack of independent advice in preparing the will; (4) the testator’s illiteracy or blindness; (5) the unjust or unnatural nature of the will’s terms; (6) the testator being in an emotionally distraught state; (7) discrepancies between the will and the testator’s expressed intentions; and (8) fraud or duress directed toward the testator.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Appellate courts give trial courts leeway with regard to the substance of their jury instructions in will contest cases. Thomas v. Hamlin, 56 Tenn.App. 13, 37 , 404 S.W.2d 569, 579-80 (1964). However, they should prepare their instructions with care because “will contests are always surrounded with confusion and uncertainty and fraught with great possibilities of the miscarriage of justice” and because jurors have a natural tendency to superimpose their judgment on the testator’s. Hager v. Hager, 13 Tenn.App. 23, 27 (1930). The trial court’s instructions are the jury’s only proper source of the legal principles to guide its deliberations. State ex rel. Myers v. Brown, 209 Tenn. 141, 148-49 , 351 S.W.2d 385, 388 (1961). Accordingly, trial courts should give substantially accurate instructions concerning the law applicable to the matters at issue. Street v. Calvert, 541 S.W.2d 576, 584 (Tenn.1976). The instructions need not be perfect in every detail, Davis v. Wilson, 522 S.W.2d 872, 884 (Tenn.Ct.App.1974), as long as they are, as a whole, correct. In re Elam’s Estate, 738 S.W.2d 169, 176 (Tenn.1987).”
    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.