Dent v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably McQuillan v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. (1998), Insurance Co. of North America v. Miller (2001)
5 district · 40 state decisions
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 Rad-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B.G. Coney Co. · Hilburn v. First State Bank of Springdale · Cox v. McLaughlin · Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Estate of Hogan · Yahraus v. Continental Oil Co.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jurisdiction of the probate court over all matters of guardianship, other than guardianships ad litem in other courts, is exclusive. Ark. Const. art. 7, § 34; Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-107 (a) (1987) (emphasis added). The section of the Arkansas Constitution that is now Article 7, section 34, did not consolidate the chancery and probate courts, and, while the judge of the chancery court is also the judge of the probate court, the judge conducts each court separately. Wooten v. Penuel, 200 Ark. 353 , 140 S.W.2d 108 (1940). The section does not permit courts of chancery to lift matters over which the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction out of probate courts and apply equitable principles in disposing of controversies cognizable only in probate. Id. at 357-58 , 140 S.W.2d at 111 ; see also Hilburn v. First State Bank, 259 Ark. 569 , 535 S.W.2d 810 (1976) (“probate courts are vested with exclusive jurisdiction in matters relative to . . . guardians. . . .”); Thompson v. Dunlap, 244 Ark. 178 , 424 S.W.2d 360 (1968) (holding that chancery and probate courts are separate tribunals, each having [its] own jurisdiction and that a chancery court cannot “inherit jurisdiction” from the probate court in same county); Janssen v. Blissenbach, 210 Ark. 22 , 193 S.W.2d 814 (1946) (stating that the two courts are wholly distinct and operate independently of one another and that [the] trial court, sitting as chancery in that case, correctly did not pass on questions reserved for probate).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person who holds power of attorney is an agent, and it has long been recognized that a fiduciary relationship exists between principal and agent in respect to matters within the scope of the agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montigue v. Jones
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.