Gassin v. McJunkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 state decisions

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

1. ““It is admitted in this case that the land was the homestead'of the deceased and was occupied by deceased and the minor children at the time of her death as such, and it is admitted that five of the children are minors or were at the time of mortgaging the property. “We first consider whether the administrator has any power or authority to mortgage the homestead for the payment of debts against the estate and what jurisdiction the administrator has over the homestead. Section 6328, R. L. 1910, provides in substance as follows: “ ‘Upon the death of either husband or wife, the survivor may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead, which shall not in any event be subject to administration proceedings, until it is otherwise disposed of according to law; and upon the death of both husband and wife the children may continue to possess and occupy the whole homestead until the youngest child becomes of age.’ “Section 6330, R. L. 1910, provides as follows: “ ‘The homestead is not subject to the payment of any debt or liability contracted by or existing against the husband and wife, or either of them, previous to or at the time of the death of such husband or wife, except such as are secured by lien thereon, as provided in the laws relating to homestead.’ “Section 2, art. 12, of the Constitution provides in substance that the homestead of the family shall be and is protected from enforced sale for the payment of debts. “Section 8417, R. L. 1910, provides: “ ‘The property, bot”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Rick

2. ““By direction of statute this decree was ‘conclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees or devisees, subject only to be reversed, set aside, or modified on appeal.’ Section 1359, supra. However reprehensible it may have been for Mrs. McJunkin’s aunts and uncles, who knew of her existence and could have learned her whereabouts, to have refrained from seeing to it that her interest in the estate was preserved, there was no fraud which prevented an appearance in her behalf. The notice prescribed by statute being given, there was no further duty owed her by them. Monk v. Mordan, 49 Cal. App. 154 , 192 P. 1042 . The statute required no personal notice. It is constitutional. Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71 , 29 S. Ct. 580 , 53 L. Ed. 914 . When the required notice is given, hearing had and decree entered, though erroneous, the latter is invulnerable to collateral attack, except as it may be vacated pursuant to statute or set aside for extraneous fraud. It concludes unknown heirs.” Citing authorities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Widger v. Union Oil Co. of Oklahoma

3. ““Decree of distribution of the estate of Andrew Gassin, Jr., was entered July 1, 1912, to which date May L. Gassin appears to have held possession of the lands as executrix of her deceased husband’s estate. Such prior possession as she enjoyed as executrix would not be adverse or hostile to the rights of those entitled to participate in the estate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cook v. Craft