Jones v. Murphy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that if the finder of fact decides against the challenging party on the existence and validity of a subsequent will, then no further inquiry is required
• “But although a will must be proved regularly by two witnesses, yet circumstances may supply the want of one witness, when they go directly to the immediate act of disposition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Frew v. Clarke
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1876-01-06· cited 21×
• Melville's Estate
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-05-11· cited 21×
• Holt Estate
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1961-11-14· cited 18×
• In re the Probate of the Will of Cunningham
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1888-02-02· cited 18×
• Allen v. Jeter
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1881-04-15· cited 8×
• Eyster v. Young
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1803-04-15· cited 7×
• Carson's Appeal
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1868-11-16· cited 4×
• McIntire v. McIntire
  Supreme Court· 1896-04-13· cited 3×
• Golze's Estate
  Montgomery County Orphans' Court· 1929-07-09
• McClure's Estate
  Philadelphia County Orphans' Court· 1930-07-01
• Banks' Estate
  Philadelphia County Orphans' Court· 1963-02-21
• In re Martin's Estate
  Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas· 1854-02-13

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Betts v. Jackson ex dem. Brown
  Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 1830-12-15· cited 66×
• Eyster v. Young
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1803-04-15· cited 7×
• Reynolds v. Reynolds
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1827-06-06· cited 4×
• Clark v. Morton
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1835-04-16· cited 3×
• Miller v. Carothers
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1820-10-16· cited 3×