Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 391 P2D 889 - Oberlander v. Eddington

Oberlander v. Eddington’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2002

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

5019641970198019902000decided

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 Chism v. Reese · National Exploration Co. v. Robins · Gassin v. McJunkin · Brown v. Brown · Faris v. Nickel

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

  1. ““ * * * that at her death said real estate shall pass to [daughters] and the said [daughters] are hereby each declared to have an undivided one half interest in and to said real estate, * * * subject to a life estate therein hereby granted [the widow] * * *. To have and to hold * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Decree of distribution of county court having jurisdiction of the settlement of a testator’s estate, entered after due notice and hearing, is conclusive in the absence of fraud, mistake or collusion as to the rights of parties interested in the estate, to all portions of said estate thereby ordered; and capable of being, then distributed under the will, unless reversed or modified on appeal; and such decree is not subject to collateral attack.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In the order or decree, the court must name the persons and the proportions or parts to which each shall be entitled, and such persons may demand, sue for and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any person having the same in possession. Such order or decree is conclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees or devisees, subject only to be reversed, set aside, or modified on appeal.””
    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.