Mitchell v. Bagot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In general, and in the absence of some existing and affect ing condition such as extrinsic fraud, or anything akin thereto, the rule would appear to be well established that even though from a standpoint of following the specific provisions of the will, a decree of distribution of the estate is inaccurate and incorrect, nevertheless after the decree has become final, for all time thereafter, it remains the unalterable measure of the rights of all persons who may be interested in the estate. (Matter of Trescony, 119 Cal. 568 [ 51 P. 951 ]; Lankton v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.2d 694, 696 [ 55 P.2d 1170 ] ; Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552 [ 51 P. 681 , 63 Am.St.Rep. 145 ] ; Moor v. Vawter, 84 Cal.App. 678 [ 258 P. 622 ] and authorities therein respectively cited.) However, should the language of such a decree appear to be ‘uncertain, vague or ambiguous’ it is subject to judicial explanation or interpretation, and in such circumstances, the will itself may be used to establish the true meaning and intent of the decree. (Fraser v. Carmen-Ryles, 8 Cal.2d 143 [ 64 P.2d 397 ] ; In re Ewer, 177 Cal. 660 [ 171 P. 683 ]; Horton v. Winbigler, 175 Cal. 149 [ 165 P. 423 ].)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Cal. App. 2d 646 - Harvey v. Smith