Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 GA 602 - Thomas v. Couch

Thomas v. Couch’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
June 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2010

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

40193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Bunger v. Grimm · Williams v. Smith · Stuckey v. Watkins · Mentone Hotel & Realty Co. v. Taylor · Peterson v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.

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

  1. ““The controlling question is whether the order of the court of ordinary granting leave to sell the land is void. If it is void, it may be attacked collaterally. If valid on its face, it cannot be collaterally attacked. * * * The court of ordinary has general jurisdiction of estates, testate and intestate. ‘The order of the court of ordinary granting leave to an administrator to sell the lands belonging to the estate be represents is his authority for so doing. The authority being shown, the law “presumes the court of ordinary required all the law requires to have been done before granting the order to sell, and we will not go behind that judgment.” ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where an application by an administrator to the court of ordinary for leave to sell property of his decedent represented that the purpose of the intended sale was to pay debts of the estate, and an apparently valid judgment was rendered granting the application, the judgment containing no recitals as to the grounds on which the application was based, it was not a ground to set that judgment aside as void that in fact the estate in question owed no debts.””
    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.