McDonald v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1973 · most notably Laros v. Hartman (1953), A. & M. COLLEGE OF TEXAS v. Guinn (1955)
31 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.
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. Steele · De Cordova v. Rogers · Linch v. Broad · Jirou v. Jirou · 60 Tex. Civ. App. 423 - Heaton v. Buhler, Ex'r.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that a certiorari proceeding in a probate matter is one of the methods of appeal provided by statute. At the same time, it is a direct proceeding. Clearly, under the holdings in Connell v. Chandler, supra; Reynolds v. Prestidge, supra; Jirou v. Jirou, supra; and Linch v. Broad, supra, the district court, in a certiorari proceeding, has power to exercise its appellate probate jurisdiction to annul a probate order and the deed executed by virtue of such order. The rule has been stated in 21 Tex.Jur., pp. 376 and 377, in the following language: “ ‘The proceeding by certiorari is direct and it is in no sense a collateral attack. While it is appellate in its nature, it seems that the powers of the court in the trial and disposition of the matters in issue are not precisely the same as those of an appellate or revisory court. “ 'The statute provides that the trial in the District Court shall be de novo, * * *. Accordingly it has been held that the District Court may neither affirm nor reverse the order of the County Court upon the record sent up; it must retry the case upon the merits as if it ■were an original suit.’ “In Linch v. Broad, supra ( 70 Tex. 92 , 6 S.W. 754 ), it was said: ‘The proceeding by certiorari is a direct proceeding, and cannot be considered, in any sense, a collateral proceeding.’ “The pirisdiction of the district court was invoked by certiorari proceedings as authorized by the statutes. * * * The case shall be tried de novo, and the issues shall b”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clayton v. Clayton““The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general control in probate matters, ' over the County Court, established in each county * * *.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hunnicutt v. Moorman
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.