Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 SO2D 559 - Smoak v. Graham

Smoak v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
April 2004
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2004

23 state decisions

10019641970198019902000decided

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 In Re: Estate of J.B. Jeffries · 79 So. 2d 846 - Sells v. Jensen · 77 So. 2d 617 - Ellard v. Godwin · Atlantic Nat'l. Bank of Jax v. Kirkwood · 81 So. 2d 728 - Goggin v. Shanley

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

  1. “"We conclude ... that the judicial labor of the probate court is complete, for purposes of review of a ruling under Section 733.18(2), at the point when recourse to suit in another court or defense of such independent action is required as a condition to any further consideration of the claim in probate.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * The decisions in Nolan and McClellan rest upon the premises that the judicial labor of the probate court upon the controverted claim is not complete until same is ultimately ordered paid if and when claimant obtains a favorable judgment by independent action. “We think the district court in the instant case correctly found that the probate court completed its judicial labor on the controverted claim when it denied payment and sustained objections so as to require independent suit thereon. * * íjí »”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he authority of the probate court in both instances is precisely the same under the statute, the net effect of the orders being in [the former] case to deprive claimant of the limitation features of the statute by denying him any relief in probate unless and until he might prevail by independent suit, and, in the [latter case], to deprive the [personal representative] of the limitation provisions under which the claim against the estate would be foreclosed by lack of timely suit, and to require him ... to defend an independent action on the claim.”
    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.