Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

220 federal appellate · 69 district · 26 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 571 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To go behind the decree of the probate court would be collaterally to attack it, not for lack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter or absence of jurisdictional facts, but to inquire into purposes and motives of the parties before that court when, confessedly, they practiced no fraud upon it.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curb & Gutter Dist. No. 37 of Fayetteville v. Parrish · Bradley-Williams v. Agency Ins. Co. of Md., Inc.

2. ““The petitioner insists that, where an administrator is required to bring the suit under a statute giving a right to recover for death by wrongful act, and is, as here, charged with the responsibility for the conduct or settlement of such suit and the distribution of its proceeds to the persons entitled under the statute, and is liable upon his official bond for failure to act with diligence and fidelity, he is the real party in interest, and his citizenship, rather than that of the beneficiaries, is determinative of federal jurisdiction. This we think is the correct view. The applicable statutes make the administrator the trustee of an express trust and require the suit to be brought and controlled by him.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holt v. Middlebrook · Sadler v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.

3. “It is settled that the federal courts have jurisdiction of suits by and against executors and administrators if their citizenship be diverse from that of the opposing party, although their testators or intestates might not have been entitled to sue or been liable to suit in those courts for want of diversity of citizenship. Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642, 5 L.Ed. 705; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L.Ed. 179; Rice v. Houston, 13 Wall. 66, 20 L.Ed. 484; Amory v. Amory, 95 U.S. 186 , 24 L.Ed. 428; Blake v. McKim, 103 U.S. 336 , 26 L.Ed. 563; American Bible Society v. Price, 110 U.S. 61 , 3 S.Ct. 440, 28 L.Ed. 70; Continental Insurance Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U.S. 237 , 7 S.Ct. 193, 30 L.Ed. 380.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Falsetti v. Indiana Oil Purchasing Co. · 185 F. Supp. 134 - Loegering v. County of Todd