Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 KAN 416 - Fudge v. Fudge

Fudge v. Fudge’s Empirical Analysis

1880

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
May 1956
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1956

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

3018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Howe v. McGivern

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

  1. ““Whether any other claims were properly chargeable against this land, or properly allowed against the estate, and whether the probate court ordered an improper distribution of the proceeds, is entirely immaterial. If there was one claim for which the court had jurisdiction to sell, that would sustain the sale.” (Fudge v. Fudge, supra, p. 418 .)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But we do not propose to. decide that question now. The case of Howe v. McGivern. 25 Wis. 525 , cited by counsel, makes against the suggestions above made, and that is as far as it does go.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The court shall require notice of the petition, and of the time and place of hearing the same, to be given for such length of time and in such manner as the court may see proper.””
    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.