Williams v. Grossman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “We overrule In re Curzenski Estate [ 384 Mich. 334 , 183 N.W. (2d) 220 ]. Although the probate of an estate has been completed and the estate closed, where a person has an action which by statute may be commenced directly against the personal representative of the decedent without first filing a claim against his probate estate,[3] the administration of the estate is "incomplete" within the meaning of the statute and upon petition the estate may be reopened[4] to provide a suable person so that the action can be commenced. Because the person having the right of action has not filed a claim in the probate proceeding (or, before it was closed, notice of suit pending), recovery of money damages is limited to sources other than assets of the probate estate therefore distributed, e.g., to sources such as the estate's right of indemnification from an insurer or the obligation of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund[5] to compensate victims of uninsured drivers.[6] [Footnotes omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moultis v. Degen

2. “permits reopening an estate for the purpose of administering `after discovered assets or to complete the administration of the same in case said estate was closed without being fully administered....' " Williams, supra at 81 , 293 N.W.2d 315 (emphasis in the original). And the Court framed the issue presented as follows: "The question before us does not concern the time or procedure for filing claims against the probate estate but, rather, the means of providing a suable defendant for an action which the statute authorizes to be commenced directly against the decedent's personal representative.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 Mich. App. 98 - Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Products Inc.

3. “the administration of a decedent's estate is `incomplete', within the meaning of the statute, to the extent a person may yet commence an action against the decedent's personal representative under the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 Mich. App. 98 - Gilliam v. Hi-Temp Products Inc.