Eberhardt v. Ovens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A second suggestion, with much more serious ramifications, is also raised in the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion suggests that Section 4 of the Schedule to Article 5 of our new Constitution has had the effect of abolishing all jurisdictional distinctions formerly drawn between the courts of common pleas and orphans’ courts. This suggestion is of such significance that it cannot go unanswered. “Prior to the recent amendments to our Constitution, we had two separate courts in this Commonwealth — courts of common pleas and orphans’ courts. Over many years, the jurisdiction and functions of each of these two courts were delineated and distinguished and were clearly and distinctly understood by the bench and bar of this Commonwealth. The recent amendment to our Constitution abolished both orphans’ courts and the courts of common pleas as they had previously existed and replaced both courts with a broader type of court, known as the Court of Common Pleas. While the Constitutional amendment abolished the orphans’ court as such, it did not, either expressly or by implication, extinguish and destroy what had been the jurisdiction and functions formerly exer cised by the orphans’ courts. On the contrary, Section 4 of the Schedule to the Judiciary Article provides that the former orphans’ courts shall now be ‘divisions’ of the reconstituted Court of Common Pleas: ‘Orphans’ courts injudicial districts having separate orphans’ courts shall become orphans’ court divisions of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 Pa. D. & C.2d 313 - DeSzirmay v. Miller

2. ““Section 301 of the Orphans’ Court Act of 1951, P. L. 1163, 20P.S. §2080.301, pertinently provides: ‘The orphans’ court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of: . . .(13) The adjudication of the title to personal property in the possession of the personal representative, or registered in the name of the decedent or his nominee . . .’The comment to this section states that the provision is ‘intended to obviate, whenever possible, a preliminary dispute as to whether the Orphans’ Court has jurisdiction to determine title to the disputed property.’ Since the instant case involves the question of whether Eberhardt owns part of what appeared to be the property of the decedent, Ovens, i.e., his business, the foregoing section of the Orphans’ Court Act applies and exclusive jurisdiction to re.solve the controversy is in the Orphans’ Court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schumann Estate