Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 SW2D 38 - Williams v. Scanlan

Williams v. Scanlan’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2004
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 2004

3 state decisions

20198619902000decided

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 Curtis v. Gibbs · Pullen v. Swanson · Cruz v. Scanlan

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

  1. “When, as here, the district court has gained jurisdiction of an estate before that estate assumed a probate nature, and when the probate court does not have jurisdiction adequate to grant all requested relief, then it is inappropriate for the probate court to exercise jurisdiction over that estate. When, as in this case, the statutory scheme confers concurrent jurisdiction on more than one court, deference to the court first acquiring jurisdiction is a judicial imperative.”
    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.