Schmidt v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellants contend that the order of the probate ■ court was not an adjudication binding on the defendants, and that the trial court should have permitted the introduction of their testimony impeaching the findings of the probate court. “The probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction, but it is given probate jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons (Const., art. 3, sec. 8), and while acting within such jurisdiction its judgments are binding and conclusive unless appealed from. The court is given express power by statute to make final settlement and distribution of estates. (R. S. 22-901 et seq.) It may remove an administrator from office for failure to account and settle the estate according to law. (R. S. 22-323.) Where an estate has not been fully administered the court shall appoint an administrator to settle the estate, and it is the duty of such administrator to acquire the possession and control of the assets of the estate and, if necessary, maintain an action against the former executor or administrator and the surety on his bond. (R. S. 22-326.) “The rule was early established by this court that in an action upon the official bond of an executor the judgment of the probate court concerning the accounting of the administrator and all matters included therein are conclusive as against collateral attack (Smith v. Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528 ; Jones v. Jones, 125 Kan. 403, 408 , 265 Pac. 66 , and cases there cited), and this adjudication is held to extend”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gaston v. Collins · Roberts v. Wallace

2. ““The probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction, but it is given probate jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons (Const. Art. 3, § 8) and while acting within such jurisdiction its judgments are binding and conclusive, unless appealed from. The court is given express power by statute to make final settlement and distribution of estates. (R. S. 22-901, et seq.) . . . Where an estate has not been fully administered the court shall appoint an administrator to settle the estate, and it is the duty of such administrator to acquire the possession and control of the assets of the estate and if necessary maintain an action against the former executor or administrator and the surety on his bond. (R. S. 22-326.) “The rule was early established by this court that in an action upon the official bond of an executor the judgment of the probate court concerning the accounting of the administrator and all matters included therein are conclusive as against collateral attack.” Citing Jones v. Jones, 125 Kan. 403, 408 , 265 Pac. 66 , and many other authorities, (p. 669.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Price v. Carmean