Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 379 PA 421 - Way Estate

Way Estate’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
March 1987
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 1987 · most notably Gallagher v. Smith (1955), Miller v. Preitz (1966)

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

2101954196019701980decided

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 Cutler's Estate · Purman Estate · Beilstein v. Beilstein · Mains's Estate · Carson's Estate

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

  1. ““Ordinarily the orphans’ court has no jurisdiction to determine fees between a distributee and his attorney. Such a situation arises between living parties which can only be settled in an action at law where either party has a constitutional right to trial by jury: Murphy’s Estate, 258 Pa. 38 , 101 A. 935 . See also: Amerling’s Estate, 13 D. & C. 582; Anderson’s Estate, 51 D. & C. 212”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where a distributee makes a contract or deals with his own distributive share, the Orphans’ Court has jurisdiction to pass on the validity of the contract or transfer if the distributee, expressly or impliedly, has assigned such distributive interest. The jurisdiction is sustained because by the assignment the distribution of decedent’s estate becomes involved.” (Emphasis in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The probate of a will without regard to its provisions is one thing; distribution of the estate of the testator in accordance with its terms is another. The former is for the register; the latter is none of his concern. Distribution is for the court alone, and, on distribution, and not before, is the validity of the provisions of a will to be passed upon. . . .””
    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.