Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 MICH 710 - Ackerman v. Pfent

Ackerman v. Pfent’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 1941
most recently cited

2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1941

2 state decisions

1019061910192019301940decided

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 Sprague v. Moore · Wilkinson v. Conaty · Johnson v. Estate of Johnson · Miller v. Hanley

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

  1. ““The petition for administration was regular in' form. There was within the jurisdiction of the probate court an estate to be administered. The determination of that court that defendant was a party entitled to letters of administration is not therefore open to collateral attack.” Ackerman v. Pfent, 145 Mich. 710, 712 .”
    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.