Wright v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A. (2009), Nelson v. Nelson (2009)
40 state decisions
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 Foss v. Wiles · Staab v. Staab · Houdashelt v. Sweet · Jardon v. Price · Staab v. Staab
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally appellees point out that under the probate code . . . heirs are permitted to wait for more than a year after the death of their intestate decedent without administration and then have the descent to his property determined in a short form probate proceeding. Quite true. It does not follow, however, as they insist, that under this section of the statute [59-2250] they are authorized to litigate as among themselves their respective interests in the estate of their ancestor. Indeed we have held to the contrary.” (p. 301.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Carter““A decree of descent under the provisions of G. S. 1945 Supp. 59-2250 does not create title but merely declares who has acquired the title of the decedent under the law of intestate succession. The function of the statute is not to determine claims or controversies affecting the distributive share which would otherwise pass under the law of intestate succession.” (Syl. f 2.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Carter““. . . there have been exceptions where the order overruling a motion to dismiss was considered equivalent to an order overruling a demurrer to the petition based upon the statutory ground set forth in G. S. 1949, 60-705, First. . . .” (p. 524.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allman v. Bird
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.