Brown v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

197 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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘This is a question of law, and not of medical science. ' It is for the jury, under the instruction of the court as to what is sufficient mental capacity to make a will, to decide on its existence or nonexistence when the will was executed from the facts testified to by the witness, and not from the witness’ opinion regarding such facts. The jury, and not the witness, are to draw the conclusion from the facts stated by the witness. The opinion of a physician as to the existence of disease or a particular malady, and its effect upon the mind, would be evidence. But a physician’s opinion regarding mental capacity generally, or the mental capacity necessary to make a will, is, in the eye of the law, no better than that of any other person.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bell v. Bell · Curtis v. Adams

2. ““No witness will be permitted to testify to a legal conclusion from facts given, either by himself or testified to by another.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Richards · Pickering v. Harris

3. ““This shows the condition of the authorities in this state upon the question now under consideration; and, while we hesitate to overrule decisions heretofore made, we feel that the importance of the question is such that it is necessary and proper to give to it a careful investigation, and to lay down what we believe to be the correct rule to govern the courts in trials like this in future. The effect of the question was to elicit from the witnesses the opinion that the testatrix did not have that degree of mental capacity required by law to enable her to make a valid will. This rule, if correct, applies not only to wills, but to every character of contracts. If a witness may testify as to the legal capacity of a testator, he may likewise testify to the want of capacity in any person making a deed, a note, or any other contract; and thus we would have a rule of law by which the very question which is submitted to the jury under the direction of the court is to be determined upon the opinions of persons who are ignorant of what the law requires in order to establish the required capacity to contract. If this rule be sustained, then all contracts of every character, as well as wills, are subject to attack, and may be avoided upon opinions given by persons who are wholly unprepared to 'decide the very question in issue. We do not believe that this position can be maintained, either on sound authority or sufficient reason.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Estate of E. Northcutt, in Re