Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 710 P2D 108 - Lowrance v. Patton

Lowrance v. Patton’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co. (1990), Hadnot v. Shaw (1992)

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

1901985199020002010decided

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 United States v. Sherwood · Vanderpool v. State · Oldland v. Gray · Dougherty v. Vidal · Grand River Dam Authority v. State

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

  1. “[A] fiduciary relationship springs from an attitude of trust and confidence and is based on some form of agreement, either express or implied, from which it can be said the minds have been met to create a mutual obligation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “moral, social, domestic or merely personal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “While the District Court of Logan County had jurisdiction and venue over the probate ease, it is an entirely different question with regard to the separate and distinct action against appellants. Appellants were third-parties to the probate proceeding, and as this Court has recognized on several occasions, the probate jurisdiction of a Court does not extend to actions between an executor and third persons, except to the extent permitted in 58 O.S. 1981 , §§ 292-295. Moreover, even under §§ 292-295, the probate court does not have the authority to adjudicate title to property or to compel its return, and a separate action must be brought. As a separate and distinct action to recover property for the estate, the venue in the present case must be determined independently of the probate proceeding.... (Footnotes omitted).”
    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.