McDannel v. Black’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general principle of res judicata applies to the orders of the probate court on final accounts of executors and administrators. We said in Heap v. Heap, 258 Mich. 250 : “ ‘The orders of the probate court are judgments, res judicata of the matters involved, and. cannot be attacked collaterally. Chapin v. Chapin, 229 Mich. 515 . The allowance of an account is an adjudication of each item of it. Hall v. Grovier, 25 Mich. 428 . The probate court determined, as it had to do to render the judgments, that the administrators had paid all debts, allowances, and residue reported by them. The finding of the payment of claims and residue is binding on the interested parties and is not open to question in a collateral proceeding. Clark v. Fredenburg, 43 Mich. 263 . Except on appeal, no other court may inquire into the sufficiency of the testimony to determine whether it sustains the findings and orders nor, indeed, whether they were supported by any evidence. Morford v. Dieffenbacker, 54 Mich. 593 ; Egan v. Grece, 79 Mich. 629 ; Holden v. Lathrop, 65 Mich. 652 . The orders, therefore, were judgments that the receipts were valid. The only procedure by which a court of equity may inquire into the account is on bill to set aside the orders for fraud.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burnham v. Kelley

2. ““ ‘In trying this question, I believe I state the rule of the court correctly, when I say, that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hustina v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad