Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 U.S. 199 - Sutton v. English

Sutton v. English’s Empirical Analysis

246 U.S. 199 · 1918

Citation profile

431
cited by 431 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

211 federal appellate · 69 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 431 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York (1941), Markham v. Allen (1946)

211 federal appellate · 69 district · 8 state decisions

880191819201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Meyer v. Construction Co. · Case of Broderick's Will · Barney v. Latham

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

  1. ““By a series of decisions in this court it has been established that since it does not pertain to the general jurisdiction of a court of equity to set aside a will or the probate thereof, or to administer upon the estates' of decedents in rem, matters of this character are not within the ordinary equity jurisdiction of the federal courts; that as the authority to make wills is derived from the states, and the requirement of probate is but a regulation to make a will effective, matters of strict probate are not within the jurisdiction of courts of the United States; that where a state, by statute or custom, gives to parties interested the right to bring an action or suit inter partes, either at law or in equity, to annul a will or to set aside the probate, the courts of the United States, where diversity of citizenship and a sufficient amount in controversy appear, can enforce the same remedy, but that this relates only to inde-' pendent suits, and not to procedure merely incidental or ancillary to the probate; and, further, that questions relating to the interests of heirs, devisees, or legatees, or trusts affecting such interests, which may be determined without interfering with probate or assuming general administration, are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts where diversity of citizenship exists and the requisite amount is in controversy. Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 503 , 509, 512, 22 L. Ed. 599 ; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485 , 494, 3 S. Ct. 327 , 27 L. Ed. 1006”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The controversy is within the equity jurisdiction of the courts of the United States as heretofore recognized in this court, and such jurisdiction cannot be limited or in anywise curtailed by state legislation as to its own courts. The complainant, it is to be noted, does not seek to set aside the probate of the will which the bill alleges was duly established and admitted to probate in the proper court of the state.” “The United States Circuit Court, by granting this relief, need not interfere with the ordinary settlement of the estate, the payment of the debts and special legacies, and the determination of the accounts of funds in the hands of the executor, but it may, and we think has the right to determine as between the parties before the court the interest of the complainant in the alleged lapsed legacy and residuary estate, because of the facts presented in the bill. The decree to be granted cannot interfere with the possession of the estate in the hands of the executor, while being administered in the probate court, but it will be binding upon the executor, and may be enforced against it personally. If the Federal court finds that the complainant is entitled to the alleged lapsed legacy and the residue of the estate, while it cannot interfere with the probate court in determining the amount of the residue arising from the settlement of the estate in the court of probate, the decree can find the amount of the residue, as determined by the administration in the probate”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Therefore she was properly made a party defendant, that being her attitude towards the actual and substantial controversy.””
    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.