Curtis v. Brunsting’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.3d 406 · 2013
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Markham v. Allen · Marshall v. Marshall · Borden v. Allstate Insurance
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e comprehend the ‘interference’ language in Markham as essentially a reiteration of the general principle that, when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res. Thus, the probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those con-fínes and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Brown“[B]ecause the assets in a living or inter vivos trust are not property of the estate at the time of the decedent's death, having been transferred to the trust years before, the trust is not in the custody of the probate court and as such the probate exception is inapplicable to disputes concerning administration of the trust.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boesky v. Siegel
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.