Ebenreck v. Union Service Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 1962
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Gilliland v. Bondurant · Cox v. Wrinkle · Robison v. Floesch Construction Co. · Padgett v. Smith · Campbell v. Campbell
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Unquestionably the minor was here represented by his own counsel with his father and natural guardian seeking to act as his next friend, and the judgment was for him. Under such a state of facts, in the absence of fraud which is not even suggested here, the judgment cannot be set aside on the ground that the minor was not properly represented. “It is next contended that there was no real hearing and judicial determination of the prior action but only a formal approval of a settlement reached by the attorneys. There can be no doubt that a trial judge, when confronted with the case of a minor, must protect the infant by a real hearing and a judicial determination of the facts. Upon this score there is no disagreement, but thé appellant urges that the judge failed to hóld-stich a hearing and-as a consequence the judgment entered should be held void. We are cited to Campbell v. Campbell, 350 Mo. 169 , 165 S.W.2d 851 . This was an action to quiet title to real estate brought by minor through a next friend, and the next friend later entered into a contract waiving the minor’s rights in the real estate and a judgment was entered upon the contract. The Supreme Court held that since the next friend had no authority to contract for the minor the judgment could not stand. Other cases cited are: Robison v. Floesch Const. Co., 291 Mo. 34 , 236 S.W. 332 , 20 A.L.R. 1239 ; Gilliland v. Bondurant, 332 Mo. 881 , 59 S.W.2d 679 ; Gurley v. St. Louis Transit Co., Mo.App., 259 S.W. 895 . All of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.