Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 CALAPP2D 259 - Hoffman v. Harvey

Hoffman v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
August 1985
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 1985

22 state decisions

601958196019701980decided

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 Security-First National Bank v. Superior Court · Central Bank v. Superior Court · McPike v. Superior Court of S.F. · 23 Cal. 2d 454 - Estate of Lucas v. Brown · Estate of De Barry

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

  1. “It is thus apparent that in the several instances enumerated where the legislature intended to give the court jurisdiction to compel action by the administrator in his dealings with strangers to the estate it used definite and appropriate language to expressly grant such power. In the case of compromises, however, no such language was used. The court is not given power to 'direct' the making of compromises but only to 'authorize' them. It is not provided that compromises 'shall' or 'must' be made by the administrator when authorized by the court, but that they 'may' be made. The internal evidence of the Probate Code indicates strongly that it was not the intention of the legislature to confer upon courts sitting in probate the power or jurisdiction to compel action by the administrator in the case of compromises.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The Court expressly refrains from making any decree concerning the rights or obligations of the parties with respect to that certain agreement of March 28, 1955, more fully described in said findings between the Byrne petitioners and said Harvey as administrator of both said estates of Edward I. Coffey, deceased and Kathleen Ann Coffey deceased, in the event the conditions set forth above are not fulfilled, leaving to all parties without prejudice by this decree their right to pursue in any way they see fit their respective remedies for the enforcement of said agreement, or their rights to appeal from the decree of this court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “neither enlarged nor abrogated the regular powers of the Administrator of said Estates, but merely afforded him additional protection from liability in the event he should effect the compromise,”
    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.