Lamar v. Micou’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 8 district · 83 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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The ease of such a guardian differs from that of an executor of or a trustee -under a will. In the one case, the title in the property is in the executor or the trustee; in the other, the title in the property is in the ward, and the guardian has only the custody and management of it, with power to change its investment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dodd v. Giuselin · Wilcoxen v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.

2. ““Tbe preference due to the law of the ward’s domicile, and the importance of a uniform administration of his whole estate, require that, as a general rule, the management and investment of his property should be governed by tbe law of tbe state of bis domicile, especially when he actually resides there, rather than by the law of any state in which a guardian may have been appointed or may have received some property of the ward. * * * The form of accounting, so-far as concerns the remedy only, must indeed he according to the law of the court in which relief is sought; but the general rule by which the guardian is to be held responsible for the investment of' the ward’s property is the law of the place of the domicile of the ward. Bar, International Law, § 106 (Gillespie’s translation), 438; Wharton, Conflict of Laws, § 259.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Wart v. Jones

3. ““An infant cannot change his own domicile. As infants have the domicile of their father, he may change their domicile by changing his own; and after his death the mother, while she remains a widow, may likewise, by changing her domicile, change the domicile of the infants; the domicile of the children, in either case, following the independent domicile of their parent. * * * But when the widow, by marrying again, acquires the domicile of a second husband, she does not, by taking her children by the first husband to live with her there, make the domicile which she derives from the second husband their domicile ; and they retain the domicile which they had, before her second marriage, acquired from her or from their father. * * *” Id., pp. 470-471, 5 S.Ct., p. 229.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ziady v. Curley