Barnhardt v. . Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1882
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2012
13 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.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law does not require that persons should be able to make a disposition of their property with judgment and discretion in order to the validity of their act, and it is sufficient if the deceased understood what he was about. . . . The law did not require a high degree of intelligence, but in order to the validity of an act of disposition, it was necessary that the deceased should have fully understood what he was doing . (Italics ours.) The exception was to the concluding words. We think there is no error, and that the language used, `fully understood,' means only that the deceased did understand what he was engaged in doing, and is in antagonism to a partial or imperfect apprehension of it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Creecy“it was necessary that the deceased should have fully understood what he was doing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Creecy
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.