Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 314 Ky. 850 - Smith v. Shamburger

Smith v. Shamburger’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2004

3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

70195119601970198019902000decided

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 Montgomery v. Viers · Hargis v. Swope, Judge · Smith v. Burnett · Frain v. Applegate, Judge · Union Trust Co. v. Garnett, Judge

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

  1. ““In petitioner’s argument in her briefs, the fact is disclosed that there are two litigations relative to the O’Brien estate pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court: (1) A settlement suit, filed April 21,1949, and (2) an appeal from the County Court, filed May 26, 1946. The appeal is from an order of Hon. Horace M. Barker, former judge of Jefferson County Court, directing the Co-Administrators to settle the estate. There has been no final disposition of either of these cases. It would seem, however, that the filing of the accounting of the Co-Administrators in the County Court bestows upon the latter complete jurisdiction to finally determine all issues now in dispute. If those items now the subject of controversy had been liquidated in advance of the filing of the accounting, and we believe this should have been done, then in truth and in fact the accounting would have been a final settlement. “Admitting, for the sake of argument, but by no means concluding that the County Court is acting erroneously in this case, it cannot be said that petitioner will suffer irreparable damage, or any damage, as a result of any order entered by or about to be made by the County Court. However, assuming that certain errors have been or will be committed by the County Court in winding up this estate, petitioner can obtain adequate relief therefrom by an appeal to the Circuit Court.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “can obtain adequate relief therefrom by an appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “to strike from the record of this estate”
    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.