Smith v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is true that the order of the trial which we have outlined was not followed exactly in the case at bar. However, a number of reasons cause us to consider that the errors, if any, in the rulings of the court to which we shall refer, do not constitute reversible error. “In the equity court we are interested in substantive justice rather than in the mere technicalities of procedure, Segall v. Loeb, 218 Ala. 483 , 118 So. 638 [ (1928) ]; 19 Am.Jur. §§ 459-460, pp. 317-318, and the issues made by the pleadings in the case, should be a guide to the litigants. Furthermore it is a settled principle that neglect to take advantage of rights at the proper time will be regarded as a waiver of such rights. Collins v. State, 22 Ala.App. 323 , 118 So. 264 , certiorari denied 218 Ala. 250 , 118 So. 265 [ (1928) ]. “In the case at bar the respondent made no objection to the introduction of the complainant’s evidence until a substantial. part of the complainant’s evidence had been introduced. The objection to the 'procedure, therefore, came too late. Furthermore under the express allegations of the bill it was necessary to show the probate of the will in the probate court because the probate of the will in the probate court is essential to the jurisdiction of the equity court. Wachter v. Davis, 215 Ala. 659 , 111 So. 917 [ (1927) ]. Certainly where the bill . alleges the probate of the will in the probate court and the probate of such will is essential to the jurisdiction of the equity cou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 So. 3d 1131 - Dorough v. Ricks

2. ““While we have seen no statement by this court as to the exact manner in which trials should be had under the provisions of § 64, Title 61, Code of 1940 [now § 43-8-199, Ala.Code 1975], providing for a will contest in the equity court, we would say that the respondent, who is in effect the proponent, should first introduce the proceedings in the probate court, that is the petition to probate the will, the order fixing the time for hearing and giving notice, testimony of the attesting witnesses and proof of will, the decree admitting the will to probate and the will itself. Section 44, Title 61, Code of 1940 [now § 43-8-171, Ala.Code 1975], provides in effect that a will which has been admitted to probate must be received without further proof. The complainant, who is in effect the contestant,- should then introduce testimony on which the alleged invalidity of the will is based. The respondent should then introduce the rebuttal testimony, if any.. The respondent should then make the opening argument to the jury, the complainant should then make the argument for complainant and the respondent should have the closing argument.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dorough v. Ricks