Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 Cal. 474 - Thomas v. Hosselkus

Thomas v. Hosselkus’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
6
states following
July 1995
most recently cited

2 district · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably Ludwicki v. Guerin (1961), Kennedy v. Wollenberg (1959)

2 district · 66 state decisions

1901902191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Owens v. McNally · Jones v. Lamont · Roach v. Coffey

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

  1. “controversy between different heirs as to their respective rights of inheritance, ... it is well settled that the administrator has no interest, but is a mere officer of the court, holding the estate as a stakeholder, to be delivered to those whom the court shall decide to be entitled thereto.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The court by which an executor or administrator is appointed has a very large discretion in determining whether, upon the facts presented to it, the officer shall either be suspended or removed, and, unless it shall appear that such discretion has been abused, and especially where the evidence is such that different minds might reach different conclusions thereon, the action of the trial court will not be reviewed on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.