Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 Okla. 451 - Davis, Adm'r v. Wright

Davis, Adm'r v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
April 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1999

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

90194419501960197019801990decided

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 Phelan v. Lacey · State Ex Rel. Lankford v. Collins · Nelson v. Fightmaster · Field v. Goat · Anderson v. Canaday

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

  1. ““A. Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding subsection B of this section, the following property shall be reserved to every person residing in the state, exempt from attachment or execution of every other species of forced sales for the payment of debts, except as herein provided: 5. Implements of husbandry necessary to farm the homestead;””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “statutes exempting property from forced sale for the payment of debts are to be given a reasonable construction to effect their intent and purpose and in case of doubt the doubt is to be resolved in favor of the exemption.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The tractor here involved by definition, supra, is an implement of husbandry and not a motor vehicle as contemplated by 31 O.S. 1941 § 8 or as defined by 47 O.S. 1941 § 22.1 and 23.1 and consequently constituted exempt property to which the widow and minor children were entitled by virtue of the provisions of 58 O.S. 1941 § 312 and 31 O.S. 1941 § 1, subd. 4. See, also, In re Slade’s Estate, 122 Cal. 434 , 55 P. 158 , and cases cited under annotations 52 A.L.R. 826 and 2 A.L.R. 818 ,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.