Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““The test of capacity is laid down by this court several times. In Nelson et al. v. Thompson et al., 16 N.D. 295, 301 , 112 N.W. 1058, 1060 , this early rule deduced from Jackson [ex dem. Cadwell] v. King, 4 Cow.N.Y. 207 , 15 Am.Dec. 354, 355, was adopted: Upon the question of incapacity to render a deed invalid, the court must be satisfied that the grantor was not in a situation to transact that particular business rationally not, on the one hand, that he should be capable of doing all kinds of business with judgment and discretion, nor, on the other hand that he should be wholly deprived of reason, so as to be incapable of doing the most familiar and trifling work. That, if the mind and memory were in such a situation at the time of executing the deed as to render him wholly incompetent to judge of his rights and interests in relation to that transaction, the deed would be void. “In Meyer et al. v. Russell, 55 N.D. 546 , 214 N.W. 857 , we say: ‘Impairment of faculties by disease or old age will not invalidate a deed, provided the grantor fully comprehended its meaning and effect, and was able to exercise his will in executing it.’ “Again: ‘Before the court will set aside a conveyance on the ground of mental incompetency of the grantor, it is necessary to show that the grantor, at the time of the execution of the instrument, was so weak mentally as not to be able to comprehend and understand the nature and effect of the transaction involved.’ Nordby v. Sagen, 64 N.D. 376 , 2”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Runge v. Moore · Hendricks v. Porter

2. “"Before a conveyance will be set aside because of the grantor's mental incompetency it must appear that the grantor at the time of the execution was so weak mentally as not to be able to comprehend the nature and effect of the transaction involved. Where the grantor, although of advanced age and somewhat impaired in health, comprehended the nature and effect of the transaction, the deed will not be set aside."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schmidt v. Frank · In Re GUARDIANSHIP of FRANK

3. ““This absolute ownership implies the right of arbitrary disposition of property of a capable and uninfluenced person. It is a corollary of absolute ownership. It is often true in connection with deeds or wills that the disposition of property indicates disregard of some, preference for others, partialities and caprice of the party disposing of the property. But if the party owns the property and has the mental capacity to know what he is doing and is uninflu enced the law does not concern itself with these matters.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Slorby v. Johnson