Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 SW2D 742 - Stell v. Salters

Stell v. Salters’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 1976
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1976

9 state decisions

3019351940195019601970decided

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 In Re Bartels' Estate Jones v. Milam · Morris v. Morris · Stolle v. Kanetzky · Morris v. Morris

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

  1. ““The tendency of juries to set aside wills which exclude blood relatives from participation in the distribution of the estate of the testator is well known to the bench and bar. Huffnagle v. Pauley (Mo.Sup.) 219 S.W. 373 ; McCannon v. McCannon, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 942 . “Juries, in such cases, are disposed'to think they are better qualified than the testator to make a proper disposition of the estate and make ■ findings accordingly. “In this case the will operated to divert the bulk of Finley’s estate from Finley’s blood relatives to those of Mrs. Finley. A man or woman in this state has the absolute right to dispose of their property by will as they see fit. Stolle v. Kanetzky, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W. 557 . Such right is not to be defeated by adverse findings óf juries upon the issue of testamentary capacity based upon evidence which does not fairly support such findings. * * * “Numerous nonexpert witnesses for con-testee testified the testator was of "sound mind. A number of witnesses testified in behalf of contestants to trivial matters. No delusions or any peculiarities were shown from which mental unsoundness could be reasonably inferred. Contestants’ witnesses, Frank Farmer, Ed. Buford and wife, testified that in their opinion Finley was of unsound mind, but the facts upon which they based such conclusions were,. in our opinion, wholly insufficient to support the same. There was also evidence that Finley suffered from a physical ailment, but there is nothing to sugges”
    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.