Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Wash. 449 - State v. Evans

State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
13
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably State v. Goldfarb (1971), Bahr, Superintendent v. Zahm (1941)

41 state decisions — followed in 13 states

80192719301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Davis v. Shepard · Walker v. Byers · Roberts v. Spencer · Schrichte v. Stites' Estate · Roberts v. Spencer

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

  1. ““These probate statutory provisions, it seems to us, are of greater potency in the protection of estates of decedents against the delayed action of claiming creditors than are our general statutes of limitation looking to the mere withholding of the remedy of civil action from suitors because of the lapse of the prescribed periods for the commencement of such actions. An important consideration in our present inquiry is that a creditor’s claim against the estate of a deceased person is, in substance; a claim in rem, since it is of necessity only a claim .against the property left by the deceased. It is not a personal claim against any one, under our system of administering the estates of decedents, by which system all of the property of the decedent, both real and personal, passes into the hands of the executor or administrator for the purpose of paying debts and distribution of the remaining property to heirs or devisees ultimately entitled thereto. Another important consideration is the. affirmative nature of the declarations found in the language of our probate code above quoted, that ‘if a claim be not filed within the time aforesaid, it shall be barred,’ and that ‘no holder of any claim against an estate shall maintain an action thereon, unless the claim shall have been first presented as herein provided;’ which prerequisites cannot be waived by an executor or administrator, as the protection of a general statute of limitation can generally be waived. Thus, we think ther”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is our opinion that the State is as effectively barred from prosecuting a claim against a decedent’s estate which was not filed at least thirty days before the filing of the final-settlement report as any other claimant would be barred.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““No holder of any claim against an estate shall maintain an action thereon, unless the claim shall have been first presented as herein provided.””
    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.