Cates v. Cates’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2005
16 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 Pearce v. Pearce · King v. Keith · Yost v. Patrick · Shinn v. Family Reserve Ins. · Jones v. Anderson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The personal representative may . . . continue the business of the decedent so far as is necessary to carry out the executory non-personal contracts of the decedent. And where a personal representative does in fact perform the contract of the decedent, the estate will be entitled to any profit realized in consequence. "It is also well settled that when a personal representative carries on the trade or business of the decedent, he is chargeable with the use of the property and capital with interest or the profits made in carrying on the business. "Where the personal representative converts the business of the decedent, he is chargeable with the value of the business and the profits made during the period of conversion."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Contracts resting on the skill, taste, or science of a party, i.e., those contracts wherein personal performance by the promisor is of the essence and the duty imposed can not be done as well by others as by the promisor himself, are personal and do not survive his death."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The trial court seems not to have treated the milk hauling of the intestate as a business, and ignored the contracts and good will by merely determining the value of the estate to be the trucks, equipment, and personal property alone. In this we think the learned court erred. The cause should, therefore, be reversed and remanded so that the value of the business at the time of its appropriation by the administrator for the benefit of his corporation might be appraised, and the appellant be paid her share. This will include the value of the good will and the contracts which intestate had with Foremost.” (Emphasis supplied.) 268 Ala. at page 10 , 104 So.2d at page 760 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cates v. Cates
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.