Mohr v. Manierre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 41 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is apparent from these sections that the publication of notice of the hearing is only intended for the protection of parties having adversary interests in the property, and is not essential to the jurisdiction of the court.” (Italics ours.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barrette v. Whitney · Seal v. Banes

2. ““Its maintenance was held to be essential to the security of numerous estates in Wisconsin, where it is said many defects are found in the records of the proceedings of the probate courts in the early period of her history. It was adopted for many years by her courts, after she ceased to be a territory and became a state of the Union. It was well fitted for the repose of titles. Whether the reasoning of this court in other cases would not lead to some modification of its doctrine it is unnecessary to consider. As already intimated, there is no occasion to go to the full extent of the doctrine for the disposition of the present case. Here no- parties claiming interests adverse to those of the lunatic are objecting to the license to sell, granted on his behalf and at his request through his guardian.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Seal v. Banes

3. ““This court, however, held that no other requisites to the jurisdiction of the county court were prescribed by the statute than the death of the iptestate, the insufficiency of his personal estate to pay his debts, and a representation of the facts to the county court where he dwelt or his real estate was situated; that the decision of the county court upon the facts was the exercise of jurisdiction which the representation conferred; and that the decision could not be collaterally attacked by reason of them. The court observed in substance * ' * * that it was sufficient to call its powers into exercise; that the petition stated the fact upon the existence of which the law authorized this sale; that the granting of the license was an adjudication that such facts existed,” etc.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holmes v. Oregon & California R.