Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 WIS2D 315 - Freitag v. Solverson

Freitag v. Solverson’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2022

21 state decisions

1401960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Schaefer v. Ziebell · Bibelhausen v. Bibelhausen · Elliott v. Fisk · Estate of Fuller · Heim v. Thomas

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

  1. ““Susceptibility, opportunity to influence, disposition to influence, and coveted result. Stated more completely: 1. A person who is susceptible of being unduly influenced by the person charged with exercising undue influence; 2. the opportunity of the person charged to exercise such influence on the susceptible person to procure the improper favor; 3. a disposition on the part of the party charged, to influence unduly such susceptible person for the purpose of procuring an improper favor either for himself or another; 4. a result caused by, or the effect of such undue influence.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The law governing the proof of undue influence and the scope of appellate review is well established. Undue influence must be proved by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence and a finding by the trial court on the issue will not be upset on appeal unless it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. . . . “Therefore, on appeal we examine the record, not for facts to support a finding the trial court did not make or could have made, but for facts to support the finding the trial court did make.” (at 282)”
    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.