Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 SO2D 113 - Succession of Simms

Succession of Simms’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Warn v. State (1977), Succession of Simms (1966)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

14019651970198019902000decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Pennoyer v. Neff · Gulf Refining Co. of Louisiana v. Glassell · Arnold v. Sun Oil 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The non-resident defendants also pleaded an exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae, predicated upon the fact that they are domiciled in Harris County, Texas, and therefore are not amenable to Louisiana service of process. Jurisdiction over the person is provided for in Art. 6 of the LSA-Code of Civil Procedure, which reads: `Jurisdiction over the person is the legal power and authority of a court to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding. This jurisdiction must be based upon: (1) The service of process on the defendant, or on his agent for the service of process; (2) The service of process on the attorney at law appointed by the court to defend an action or proceeding brought against an absent or incompetent defendant who is domiciled in this state; or (3) The submission of the party to the exercise of jurisdiction over him personally by the court, or his express or implied waiver of objections thereto.' It has been emphasized in the editorial comments applicable to this article, that the concept of jurisdiction over the person was made part of the procedural law of Louisiana as one of the requirements of due process of law in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, ( 95 U.S. 714 , 24 L.Ed. 565 ). Since the rendition of that decision, an avalanche of jurisprudence has emanated from tribunals, both high and low, in an effort to establish as guidelines, in one situation or another, the exact limitations of the doctrine enunciated there”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “After considering the innumerable ramifications of the problems involved in these arguments, it seems perfectly clear to us that “real rights” and incorporeal immovables are not separate and distinct concepts. While it is indeed unfortunate that Louisiana mineral law, which, to say the least, is already confused, should be further encumbered by common law terminology appearing in the statutes creating “real rights”, we feel that this inadvertent use of semantics does not change the nature of the concept represented thereby. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the “real rights” created by the legislature merely constitute a species of incorporeal immovable property irrespective of what they are termed, and therefore must be accorded the same treatment by the courts. 175 So.2d at 125 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The last testament of Mrs. Lilly Weir Simms provides that if any legatee or devisee contests it or by legal procedure interferes with the handling of the estate, then that legatee or devisee shall take nothing under her will or out of her estate. For this reason, Kenneth Franzheim, II, has appealed only in his capacity as executor and trustee, and not individually. For the same reason Mrs. Lilly Franzheim McCullar has appealed only in her capacity as provisional administratrix.”
    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.