Scott v. Abraham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After alleging the appointment of Charlie Scott as guardian, it is alleged: “ ‘This appointment was fraudulently procured by. and through said Charlie Scott and defendant Joe Abraham with the intention of cheating and defrauding the minor out of her property.’ “The above is the only allegation of fraud in the petition. It states a conclusion rather than any facts from which fraud could even be inferred. The only other facts alleged relating to the procurement of the appointment of Charlie Scott as guardian are to the effect that the minors were not residents of Haskell county at the time of his appointment. We have already seen that the determination of the county court upon this point cannot be here called in question. If we go further and say that, since the petition alleged nonresidence of the minors in Haskell county, the finding of the county court that they did live there, which finding is conclusively presumed (Hathaway v. Hoffman, supra [ 53 Okla. 72 , 153 Pac. 184 ]), must have been based upon perjured testimony, still the issue was not triable in this case, for it is fraud or perjury aliunde the record which may be inquired into and.not perjury involved in the matter actually determined (Brown v. Trent, supra [ 36 Okla. 239 , 128 Pac. 895 ]; Elrod v. Adair, supra [ 54 Okla. 207 , 153 Pac. 660 ]). Were it not so. there would be no end of litigation, since in every case where there was a conflict of evidence the unsuccessful paíty would immediately sue to set aside t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Landrum v. Ross