Price v. Hitaffer’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
4 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably State v. Ward (1978), 7 Ill. 2d 106 - Bradley v. Fox (1955)
4 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Riggs v. . Palmer · New York Mutual Life Insurance v. Armstrong · Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Armstrong · Perry v. Strawbridge · 5 H. & J. 317 - State v. Buchanan
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This appeal is from an order of the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City passed in the distribution of the Estate of Della A. Martin, deceased intestate, which order excluded from participation in the distribution of said estate the heirs or personal representatives of Walter J. Martin, the husband of Della A. Martin, who, it is admitted and proven, did on the first day of October, 1931, shoot and kill his wife, and almost immediately thereafter commit suicide. These facts present the main question to be determined, namely: Can a murderer, or his heirs and representatives through him, be enriched by taking any portion of the estate of the one murdered?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Cox's Estate““There can be no forfeiture without first having beneficial use or possession. One cannot forfeit what he never had. The surviving husband in the case before us, never having acquired any interest in his wife’s estate, there is nothing upon which the constitutional or statutory prohibition can operate. By virtue of his act he is prevented from acquiring property which he would otherwise have acquired, but does not forfeit an estate which he possessed.’’ (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) 164 Md. at 508 , 165 A. at 471 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Suffice it to say that we decline to follow the reasoning supporting any interpretation fraught with consequences so pernicious and so abhorrent to the sense of justice, equity, and morality entertained by what we are pleased to believe is the overwhelming majority of thoughtful and moral people, but prefer to give expression and adherence to the principles and reasoning so forcibly presented by those courts who have in the past adopted the views ... expressed [in the common law]. Id. at 517 , 165 A. 470 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Ford
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.