Carr v. Radkey
Supreme Court of Texas
393 S.W.2d 806 (1965)
Radkey and others (plaintiffs) contested Hattie Hewlett's will, arguing Hewlett was of unsound mind and therefore lacked capacity to execute a will. At trial, the State of Texas, represented by Carr (defendant), proffered a mental health expert's opinion that some of Hewlett's actions showed that she was of sound mind at the time she executed the will. The judge excluded the proffered testimony because it pertained to the ultimate issue in the case, thus invading the province of the jury. The jury determined Hewlett was mentally incapacitated, and the trial court denied probate to the will. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Greenhill, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.