Odle v. Baskins’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1983
2 federal appellate · 12 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 Parks v. Lefeber · Stevens v. Patten · Hulen v. Truitt · Kingsbury v. Ross · Byers v. Brinlee
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A devisee may convey the property prior to distribution by the county court. Parks v. Lefeber, 162 Okl. 265 , 20 P.2d 179 , 86 A.L.R. 392 . And on final distribution the court should assign to the grantee the interest so conveyed. Sec. 1366, O.S. 1931, Title 58, O.S. 1941, § 644, 58 Okl.St.Ann. § 644. But the failure of the court to so assign the interest will not adversely affect the grantee’s title. The county court has jurisdiction to conclusively determine the heirs of a decedent, but is without power to determine the legal effect of their conveyances of property of the estate. The decree of the county court on distribution does not create a title in the distributee. As said in Stevens v. Patten, 174 Okl. 582 , 50 P.2d 1106 , 1111: ‘The county courts of Oklahoma have no jurisdiction to create or determine the title to real estate.' We have heretofore stated with approval the California rule that the decree of the probate court distributing lands of a decedent is conclusive only as to rights of heirs, legatees or devisees in so far as they claim in such capacity, merely determining succession to such title as the decedent may have had. Byers v. Brinlee, 157 Okl. 72 , 10 P.2d 690 . The rule we apply here is stated in Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 , 19 P.2d 784 , as follows: ‘Decree of distribution does not determine title between legatee whose right has vested and his grantee.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.