Spencer v. Pringle’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1978 · most notably Matter of Estate of Kimball (1978), Jackson v. State (1976)
22 state decisions
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 Hahn v. Citizens State Bank · Commercial Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Burke · Culbertson v. Ainsworth · Hagerty v. Work · State ex rel. McKown v. Williams
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The final account of a personal representative should show the items he is chargeable with at their inventory value as this may be corrected by reappraisement or actual sale of the several items or by evidence introduced before the court indicating their actual value, or by loss or destruction of property. To this should properly be added all accretions to the estate which have come into the possession of the executor, such as interest, profits on sales, etc. It is then an easy matter for the court to compute, under the statute, the amount of the estate ‘accounted for’ by its officer.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“' “When mo compensation is provided by the will, or the executor renounces all claim thereto, he must be allowed commissions upon the amount of the estate accounted for by him, * * *” (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is also urged for the appellant that the trial court interpreted Section 88-2608, W. R. S. 1931, supra, to mean that for extraordinary services the attorney for the executor is limited in amount to a sum no greater than may be allowed to the executor. If that were so, then we think, the trial court was mistaken. Reed v. Taliaferro, 37 Wyo. 107, 113 , 259 Pac. 815 , 2 Bancroft’s Probate Practice, Sec. 438, p. 821. If the view suggested as held by the trial court were to prevail, it would in such event often be impossible to conduct exhaustive and important litigation by which the estate would be either greatly benefited or its very existence preserved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Young
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.