Brown v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 1956
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 First National Bank v. King · Musick v. Beebe · Bauserman v. Charlott · Foote v. Foote · McGhee v. Alexander
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this case there were no debts, except a few of small amount, which were paid. The assets were accessible to the heirs of the intestate, who lived where they could easily confer with each other. The appointment of an administrator was unnecessary, and the expenses incident thereto might well have been avoided. The property belonged to the heirs, exclusively, and it seems reasonable and just that they should have the right to divide it among themselves and own, use and dispose of it in severalty as any other property which they might own. “The only person who could question such a transaction would be a creditor who had been overlooked and not paid. The possibility of that contingency had passed, however, some years before this suit was commenced, by lapse of time, more than three years having passed since the last date on which an administrator might have been appointed. (Bauserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480 , 26 Pac. 1061 ; Kulp v. Kulp, 51 Kan. 341 , 32 Pac. 1118 , 21 L. R. A. 550 Bank v. King, 60 Kan. 733, 737 , 57 Pac. 952 .”) (p. 108.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Warner v. Gould““The parties to such an arrangement executed, would be forever equitably estopped from disturbing it as amongst themselves, upon the most familiar principles of justice. And why shall the arrangement be broken up by a mere intermeddler? Family arrangements are favorites of the law, and when fairly made are never allowed to be disturbed by the parties, or any other for them.” (Walworth v. Abel, 52 Pa. St. 370, 372.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riffe v. Walton
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.