Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 F.1d 49 - Reed v. Reed

Reed v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

31 F. 49 · 1887

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
April 1939
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1939

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

50188718901900191019201930decided

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 Gaines v. Fuentes · Ellis v. Davis · Yonley v. Lavender · Tarver v. Tarver · Adams v. Preston

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

  1. ““This question of jurisdiction is not a new one in this court. At the April term, 1878, this court had the same question before it in the case of Howe v. Nesbit (not reported); and the court then decided, after full argument (Judges Baxter and Welker sitting together), that the court had no jurisdiction to try a controversy brought under the Ohio statute to contest the validity of a will, by an original bill filed for that purpose, and sustained a demurrer to such bill for want of such jurisdiction, and dismissed the case for that ground of demurrer. In that case the will had been probated in the probate court of Lorain county, and the petition was filed as the one in this case was filed, making the heirs at law of the testatrix defendants, and asking that the cause be submitted to a jury to determine whether the said instrument was the valid last will and testament of said Catherine Nesbit, and that the same might be declared null and void. 1 see now, after a careful examination of the authorities cited by counsel in this case, no reason to change that ruling.””
    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.