123 Ind. App. 633 - Weiland v. Scheuch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘We think suits to remove guardians, however styled, are necessarily brought against the individual. The very purpose of the suit is to reach the individual and strip him of his representative powers. It is the individual who is laid hold of and removed from his trust. It is the individual who fails to perform his duties as a guardian and it is the individual who takes the oath. The judgment must necessarily be against the individual that he be and is thereby removed from his trust. So in our opinion this suit, making “William W. Sibley, guardian of Janet May Sibley and Sue Ann Sibley” a party defendant, was, in fact and law, instituted against William W. Sibley as an individual and the words “guardian, etc.” are merely descriptio personae and properly used to designate the matter concerning which said Sibley is being sued. ... It is apparent that this judgment is against William W. Sibley individually and an appeal from such judgment, as an individual, is authorized by statute. §2-3201, Burns’ 1946 Replacement.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 130 Ind. App. 351 - RUSSELL, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. v. Moore

2. ““The first specification is based on the failure of the original transcript herein to show the judgment herein. This was cured by the return of the clerk of the Probate Court of Marion County to the writ of certiorari referred to above. “The second asserts ‘No appeal can be taken by an executor or administrator, as such, after their removal since such removal terminates their authority as executor or administrator notwithstanding a timely appeal and that any right of appeal by the former executor or administrator must be taken by them individually.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 130 Ind. App. 351 - RUSSELL, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. v. Moore

3. ““The failure to properly name parties in an appeal is no longer jurisdictional.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 130 Ind. App. 351 - RUSSELL, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. v. Moore