Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 SD 38 - Wagner v. Brownlee

Wagner v. Brownlee’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2023

17 state decisions

100200620102020decided

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 Hrachovec v. Kaarup · In Re Engebretson's Estate · Rock v. Rock · Becht v. Miller · In Re Estate of Lewis

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

  1. “the case at bar presents the question of the allowance from an estate as administrative expenses of fees and expenses incurred not by the executor or administrator but by a residuary legatee. The question in its precise form has never been heretofore presented for consideration in this jurisdiction. Examination of the decisions of other states reveals the existence of conflicting opinion, but as a general proposition it may be stated that, before such an item may be charged against the estate, it must be shown that the services rendered were beneficial to the estate as a whole rather than to an individual or group of individuals interested therein. [[Image here]] A doctrine which permits a decedent’s estate to be so charged, should, however, in our opinion, be applied with caution and its operation limited to those cases in which the services performed have not only been distinctly beneficial to the estate, but became necessary either by reason of laches, negligence, or fraud of the legal representative of the estate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[b]ecause Weekley was the only beneficiary that would have avoided any tax liability under her theory, it was not an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to conclude that her efforts were primarily for her own financial gain rather than for the benefit of the estate, notwithstanding any alleged effort to effectuate the testator's intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[N]o justification has been presented for the estate's failure to recover the equipment and pay Weekley's claims as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate[.]”
    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.