Scott v. Randle’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2016
17 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 Orr v. Turco Manufacturing Co. · Pepkowski v. Life of Indiana Insurance Co. · Yin v. Society National Bank Indiana · Klebes v. Forest Lake Corp. · Koval v. SIMON TELELECT. INC.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In 1979, Edna Sager executed a will giving her husband Clarence a life estate in her undivided interest in 440 acres owned by them as tenants in common, with a remainder to her niece Elva Ran-dle. Clarence’s will contained a like provision. If Edna survived Clarence, all her remaining assets would go to Elva. Clarence died before 1984. In 1984, Edna executed a will and trust agreement. Elva took nothing under the provisions of the second will and the trust. Edna died in December 1989. The first will, benefiting Elva and Ralph, was admitted to probate in Carroll County Circuit Court, and the second will and trust agreement, benefiting the [Scott parties], was admitted to probate in Tippecanoe Circuit Court. Both wills were subsequently challenged [by the Scott parties, the Randle parties, and the Bank, which was the trustee for Edna’s estate pursuant to the 1984 will and trust agreement], and the actions [were] eventually consolidated in the Cass Circuit Court on April 14, 1993.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Scott v. Randle“[W]hen a party places an agent in the position of sole negotiator on his behalf, it may be reasonable for the third person to believe that the agent possesses authority to act for the principal. In such instance, the conduct of the principal constitutes the requisite manifestation or communication, although indirect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“by written or spoken words or other conduct of the principal which, reasonably interpreted, causes the agent to believe that the principal desires him so to act on the principal's account.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.