Hons v. A. Bertolla & Sons’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McMaken v. McMaken · 460 So. 2d 1282 - Simpson v. Jones · Cooper v. Cooper · Bonded Builders Supply Company v. Long
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e cannot hold that Hons failed to comply with the statutory mandates in this case— Section 43-8-200 does not require the contestant to include alb such parties in his complaint, and certainly does not require that this be done within the six-month time period set out in § 43-8-199. Nor will we infer such a requirement from those statutes. Section 43-8-200 is merely a codification of thé longstanding rule that certain persons, such as devisees, heirs, etc., of the testator are ‘indispensable parties’ to a will contest, and therefore, after a will contest .is. properly instituted in circuit court, they must be made parties to the contest. See, McMaken v. McMaken, 18 Ala. 576 (1851). The statute is analogous to the joinder of persons needed for just adjudication as set out in Rule 19, [Ala.] R. Civ. P. Once it is determined that a person, not named as a party, to the contest, is within one of the categories of ‘interested’ parties listed in § 43-8-200, and is therefore a necessary or indispensable party under the statute, the court, must order that he be made a party to the contest. This may occur at any time during the proceedings, whether upon motion by the defendant under Rule 12(b)(7), [Ala.] R. Civ. P., or by motion of any party or on the court’s own initiative under Rule 21, [Ala.] R. Civ. P. See, Rule 19, [Ala.] R. Civ. P., and comments. “The initial complaint filed by Hons on February 26, 1987, properly satisfied the statutory requirements of § 43-8-199, and thus pro”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ussery v. Terry““[i]n the event a contest of the probate of a will is instituted in the circuit court,.as is or may be authorized by law, all parties interested in the probate of the will, as devisees, legatees or otherwise, as well as those interested in the testator if he had died intestate, as heirs, distributees or next of kin, shall be made parties to the contest....””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ussery v. Terry““[a]ny person interested in any will who has not contested the same under the provisions of this article, may, at any time within the six months after the admission of such will to probate in this state, contest the validity of the same by filing a complaint in the circuit court in the county in which such will was probated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ussery v. Terry
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.