Moody v. Branson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 19 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[1] This was an action in personam against Martha Ryan Moody. She resided in Greenwood County, Kansas. The personal property of the Trust was located there. The district court of that county being one of general jurisdiction possessing general equity powers, had jurisdiction of the action. Manley v Carter, 7 Kan. App. 86 , 52 P. 915 ; 65 C.J. 597, 629; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, vol. 3, §523, p. 1656.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thatcher Estate · Britton v. Green

2. ““2. Appellants next contend that even though Bran-son’s appointment by the Kansas Court be held valid the trial court had power to remove him for cause, and erred in refusing to hear evidence on that issue. The basis of the contention is that since much of the property of the trust is located in Oklahoma and the parties were before the court, the court had power to inquire into the trustee’s conduct since his appointment and into the question of whether he was a proper person to act by reason of his residence in Kansas. The pleading and offer of proof on this issue went chiefly to the proposition that Branson, who lived in Kansas, should be removed because the trust estate could be more economically administered by an Oklahoma trustee. Assuming, without deciding, that such issue may be raised in a collateral proceeding such as this; that cestuis que trustent whose interests are merely contingent may raise the question; that the Kansas court had no authority to retain jurisdiction to administer the details of the trust; and that the pleadings state a valid cause for removal, we think the trial court, nevertheless, properly refused to entertain the question. “The District Court of Greenwood County, Kansas, by its judgment was at least asserting an exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to administer the trust. It had required its trustee to give bond for the faithful performance of his duties. If the courts of Oklahoma, while the action in Kansas is pending, should order his rem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thatcher Estate

3. ““Under the doctrine of comity, a court should ordinarily decline to entertain jurisdiction of a matter where there is an action already pending in a convenient and competent forum of a sister state to which the parties may apply, and where exercise of jurisdiction by the second court might lead to confusion and conflicting orders.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clampitt v. Johnson