Carpenter v. Berry’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. “Infants and persons of unsound mind are disabled under the law to act for themselves. Long ago it became the established rule for the court of chancery to act as the superior guardian-'for all persons under such disability. This inherent and traditional power and protective duty is made complete and irre-fragable by the provisions of our present state constitution. It is not: competent for the Legislature- to abate the said powers and duties or for the said court to omit or neglect them. It is the inescapable duty of the said court and[/]or the chancellor to act with constant care and solicitude towards the preservation and protection of the rights of infants and persons non compos mentis. The court will take nothing as confessed against them; will make for them every valuable election; will rescue them from faithless guardians, designing strangers, and even from unnatural parents!;] and in general will, and must take all necessary steps to conserve and protect the best interest,of these wards of the court. The court will not and cannot-permit the rights of an infant to be prejudiced by a waiver, or omission or neglect or design of a guardian, or of any other person, so far as.within the .power of the court to .prevent or correct. . All persons who deal with guardians or with courts in respect to the rights of infants are . charged with the knowledge of the above principles, and act to. the contrary thereof at their peril.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zebert v. Guardianship of Baker · Estate of Eubanks v. Eubanks

2. “(1) That final judgments should not lightly be disturbed; (2) that the Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for appeal; (3) that the rule should be liberally construed in order to achieve a substantial justice; (4) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; (5) [relevant only to default judgments]; (6) whether[,] if the judgment was rendered áfter a trial on the merits[,] the movant had a fair opportunity to present his claim or defense; (7) whether there are intervening equities that would make it inequitable to grant relief; and (8) any other factors relevant to the justice of the judgment under attack.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jon Lunsford v. Process Technologies Services, LLC · 110 So. 3d 735 - Southern Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Lloyd's of London

3. “In Tricon Metals, the Court determined “whether and when a trial court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law” when not requested by either party. [Tricon Metals & Services Inc. v. Topp, 516 So.2d 236, 237, 239 (Miss. 1987)]. We held that “where a case is hotly contested and the facts greatly in dispute and where there is any complexity involved therein, failure to make findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a) will generally be regarded as an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 239 . This Court will remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law where it is not “obvious from a review of the record such that the absence of written findings may be excused.” Precision Interlock Log Homes, Inc. v. O’Neal, 689 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss.1997).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 213 So. 3d 103 - Ellis Turnage v. Ellis Christopher Brooks