George v. August’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘1 *' * * inasmuch as no recovery is sought from the assets of the estate itself, vacation of the judgment closing the estate is not considered a prerequisite to reappointment of the administrator for the purpose of accepting service of summons. * * “* * * The administrators involved here voluntarily accepted appointment in the first instance, and thereby subjected themselves to the burdens of administration. Those burdens necessarily included the possibility that an action might be maintained under R. C. 2117.07 seeking recovery from decedent’s insurer. The fact that the estate has been closed does not affect appellant’s right to proceed under the latter statute. The reappointment places no further burden on appellees, or the estate, as they are nominal defendants only; the estate will not be chargeable with any recovery resulting from the action and the insurance company will be required to defend the action. “We hold that in a negligence action for the recovery of damages, instituted under R. C. 2117.07 against an administrator seeking to recover only from the decedent’s liability insurer, where the administrator of the estate of the decedent has been discharged and the estate closed, the Probate Court may reappoint the administrator or appoint some other suitable person for the purpose of accepting service of summons.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heuser v. Crum

2. ““We are of the opinion that the procedure employed by appellant in the circumstances presented herein was proper. The administrators involved here voluntarily accepted appointment in the first instance, and thereby subjected themselves to the burdens of administration. Those burdens necessarily.included the possibility that an action might be maintained under Section 2117.07, Revised Code, seeking recovery from decedent’s insurer. ' The fact that the estate has been closed does not affect appellant’s right to proceed under the latter statute. The reappointment places no further burden on ap- pellees, or the estate, as they are nominal defendants only; the estate will not be chargeable with any recovery resulting from the action and the insurance company will be required to defend the action. “We hold that in a negligence action for the recovery of damages, instituted under R.C. 2117.07 against an administrator seeking to recover only from the decedent’s liability insurer, where the administrator of the estate of the decedent has been discharged and the estate closed, the Probate Court may reappoint the administrator or appoint some other suitable person for the purpose of accepting service of summons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Ohio App. 3d 55 - Gentile v. Carr