In re Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1873
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1923
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no prohibition in the constitution or elsewhere against the exercise of such jurisdiction by the probate courts. There is no inconsistency between the exercise of this jurisdiction and the performance of any other duty that may rightfully be conferred upon probate courts. And the probate courts or judges thereof may exercise this jurisdiction as consistently with the performance of their other duties as.they may take the acknowledgment of deeds, or solemnize marriages. . . . This is not the first jurisdiction or power which has been conferred upon probate courts or probate judges, aside from the ordinary powers or jurisdiction authorized by the constitution. They may take the acknowledgment of deeds. (Comp. Laws, 355, § 14; Gen. Stat. 186, § 9.) They may issue marriage licenses. (Gen. Stat. 560, §4 et seq.) They may solemnize marriages. . . . The legislature undoubtedly intended to confer said jurisdiction upon the persons who exercise the jurisdiction of the probate courts, and not upon the courts themselves as probate courts.” (p.p. 103, 105.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legislature in enacting said sections uses the words ‘probate courts/ instead of using some other designation for the persons intended. But the language must be liberally construed, so as to carry out the will of the legislature, and not to defeat it. The legislature undoubtedly intended to confer said jurisdiction upon the persons who exercise the jurisdiction of the probate courts,.and not upon the courts themselves as probate courts.” (Page 105.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shreves v. Gibson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.