Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 MO 267 - Ex parte Zorn

Ex parte Zorn’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 1940
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1940

4 state decisions

201912192019301940decided

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 State ex rel. Taylor v. Wurdeman

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

  1. “We have no hesitation in holding that Jackson County was the proper place to conduct the inquiry into the alleged insanity of petitioner, because that county was the place of his residence. . . . It is apparent that the Legislature intended that the guardians of insane persons should be appointed and their estates administered in the county of their residence where their property is located, and where their friends and acquaintances are likely to reside. . . . Probate courts are part of the judicial system of our state, being created by the Constitution, and empowered by that document to pass upon the sanity of individuals; therefore, the instrumentalities for invoking their jurisdiction in that class of cases may be prescribed by general law,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We have no hesitation in holding that Jackson county was the proper place to conduct the inquiry into the alleged insanity of petitioner, because that county was the place of his residence. One of the objects of article 19, chapter 2, Revised Statutes 1909 (now Secs. 448 et seq. R.S. 1929) is to protect and preserve the property of persons of unsound mind. This is evidenced by the fact that the proceeding cannot be instituted in the probate court if the insane person has no property .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no statute authorizing a probate court to send its process beyond its county and thereby acquire jurisdiction to adjudge parties insane who are outside of the county where the proceeding is instituted.”
    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.