Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 F.2d 187 - Holt v. Middlebrook

Holt v. Middlebrook’s Empirical Analysis

214 F.2d 187 · 1954

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co. (1982), Semler v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington (1978)

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

110195419601970198019902000decided

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 Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co. · Murdock v. City of Memphis · Fox v. Standard Oil Co. · Cooper v. American Airlines, Inc. · Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Whatever may have been the law prior to the Amendment of 1950 to the Virginia Code, we think the addition by that amendment of the words ‘or act’ in the restrictive statute requires us to affirm ,the judgment below and to hold that the instant actions must be dismissed. * * * “Prior to this 1950 amendment, the only way foreign personal representatives were permitted to act in Virginia was the bringing of civil actions for death by wrongful act. We conclude, then, the purpose of the Legislature in adding these words ‘or act’ to the restrictive statute was just to forbid the bringing of such civil actions. * * *””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““§ 26-59. No person not a resident of this State nor any corporation not authorized to do business in this State shall be appointed or allowed to qualify or act as personal representative, or trustee under a will, of any decedent, or appointed as guardian of an infant or committee of any person non compos mentis, unless there be also appointed to serve with the non-resident personal representative, trustee, guardian or committee, a person resident in this State or corporation authorized to do business in this State; * * *.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““No natural person not a resident of this State “ * * * shall be appointed or allowed to qualify or act as personal representative * * * of any decedent.” Code of Virginia, § 26-59.”
    2 later decisions 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.