Bye v. Mattingly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] physically weak and mentally impaired testator, a will which is unnatural in its provisions, a recently developed and comparatively short period of close relationship between the testator and principal beneficiary, participation by the principal beneficiary in the preparation of the will, possession of the will by the principal beneficiary after it was reduced to writing, efforts by the principal beneficiary to restrict contacts between the testator and the natural objects of his bounty, and absolute control of testator’s business affairs.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Amos v. Clubb · Rothwell v. Singleton

2. “1) There is a strong presumption in favor of a testator possessing adequate testamentary capacity which can only be rebutted by the strongest showing of incapacity. 2) Kentucky is committed to the doctrine of testamentary absolutism, whose practical effect is that the privilege of citizens to draft wills to dispose of their property is zealously guarded by the courts and will not be disturbed based on remote or speculative evidence. 3) There is a minimum level of mental capacity required to make a will. It is less than that necessary to make a deed or a contract. 4) Merely being an older person, possessing a failing memory, momentary forgetfulness, weakness of mental power or lack of strict coherence in conversation does not render one incapable of validly executing a will. 5) Under the “lucid interval doctrine” when a testator is suffering from a mental illness which ebbs and flows in terms of its effect on the testator’s mental competence, it is presumed that the testator was mentally fit when the will was executed. 6) In addition to demonstrating that undue influence was exercised upon the testator, a contestant asserting undue influence must also show influence occurring prior to or during the execution of the will; undue influence exercised after the execution of the will has no bearing whatsoever upon whether the testator disposed of her property according to her own wishes. 7) Merely demonstrating that the opportunity to exert undue influence existed is not sufficient ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Briggs v. Kreutztrager