Meigs v. Frietzsche’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Another answer to appellant's contention is that the judgment roll, the only source to which we may look in determining whether jurisdiction existed in the probate court (Security-First Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.2d 749 ), does not show that the probate court acted under a particular section. The questioned order recites that due notice was regularly given as required by law. Both sections require notice in accordance with section 1200, Probate Code. By the terms of section 1200, a finding that notice has been regularly given is, when the order is final, 'conclusive upon all persons.' (Estate of Loring, 29 Cal.2d 423, 429 [ 175 P.2d 524 ]). We cannot here question this showing of the judgment roll (Security-First Nat. Bank v. Superior Court, supra; Estate of Smith, supra, [ 4 Cal.App.2d 548 ( 41 P.2d 565 )]), at least in the absence of some evidence of fraud.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Joslyn