Dragan v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 712 · 1982
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Lloyd v. Loeffler (1982), Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Estate of Cammon (1991)
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Markham v. Allen · Sutton v. English · Farrell v. O'Brien · 99 Ill. App. 3d 493 - Nemeth v. Banhalmi
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one of the most mysterious and esoteric branches of the law of federal jurisdiction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal court has no jurisdiction to probate a will or administer an estate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the words referred to must relate only to independent controversies inter partes, and not to mere controversies which may arise on an application to probate a will because the state law provides for notice, or to disputes concerning the setting aside of a probate, when the remedy to set aside afforded by the state law is a mere continuation of the probate proceeding, that is to say, merely a method of procedure ancillary to the original probate, allowed by the state law for the purpose of giving to the probate its ultimate and final effect. We say the words action or suit inter partes must have this significance, because unless that be their import it would follow that a state may not allow any question to be raised concerning the right to probate at the time of the application, or any such question thereafter to be made in an ancillary probate proceeding without depriving itself of its concededly exclusive authority over the probate of wills. This may be readily illustrated. Thus, if a state law provides for any form of notice on an application to probate a will and authorizes a contest before the admission of the writing to probate, then it would follow, if the words suit or action inter partes embrace such a contest, the proof of wills, if contested by a citizen of another State or alien, would be cognizable in the courts of the United States and hence not under the exclusive control of the state probate court. Again, if a state authorized a will to be proved in common”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.