Holt v. King’s Empirical Analysis
250 F.2d 671 · 1957
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2000
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · Markham v. Allen · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Sutton v. English · Fry v. Dewees
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the contention of appellants that the United States District Court had original jurisdiction of this cause (there being diversity of citizenship and a sufficient amount in controversy) because jurisdiction over a suit in equity of the pame character would have existed in the county or district courts of the state. “In order to test this, we must consider the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the courts, referred to, as established by the Constitution of Texas and statutes passed in pursuance thereof * *. * * * * * * “The present suit being, in an essential feature, a suit to annul the will of Mary Jane Hubbard, and a proceeding of this character being by the laws of Texas merely supplemental to the proceedings for probate of the will and cognizable only by the probate court, it follows from what we have said that the controversy is not within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rice v. Sayers, 10 Cir., 198 F.2d 724 , was a suit to nullify certain trusts created by will. This court held that under Kansas law the action was one to contest a will and was an action over which the Kansas probate court had exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, as the Kansas courts of general original jurisdiction were without jurisdiction, the federal court likewise had no jurisdiction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plaintiffs have the right to have their title determined. The rights of Edwards (the unjoined cotenant) cannot be determined herein and consequently they will not be injuriously affected. Rule 19(b) makes it clear that the judgment will not 'affect the rights or liabilities of absent persons.’ ””
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.