Malcolm v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

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

1. ““Upon the death of Francis Malcolm Cropper such property as he then owned passed by the laws of succession to Theodore Malcolm, as his sole heir at law, subject to administration. The right under the agreement which appellant seeks to enforce is to impress a trust upon the whole of this property. The relief which appellant seeks in her independent action is known as ‘quasi specific performance’ and if she is successful, Theodore Malcolm will be charged as trustee as to any property belonging to appellant which he may have re eeived from the estate. So far as the estate proceedings are concerned, appellant’s cause of action on the alleged agreement must be deemed one against him alone, and not enforceable in probate against the personal representative of the estate. (McCabe v. Healy, 138 Cal. 81 [ 70 P. 1008 ]; Lee v. Zimmerman, 75 Cal.App. 617 [ 243 P. 62 ] ; Bank of California v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 516 [ 106 P.2d 879 ]; Notten v. Mensing, 3 Cal.2d 469 [ 45 P.2d 198 ]; Rundell v. McDonald, 62 Cal.App. 721 [ 217 P. 1082 ].) In an estate proceeding it is the duty of the court to distribute the estate to the persons entitled under the will or by succession, or their grantees. (Estate of Crooks, 125 Cal. 459 [ 58 P. 89 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ].) It is without jurisdiction to determine the rights of parties asserting title, as appellant does, adversely to the estate and to those who take by will or the laws of succession. (Estate of Harris, 9 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 154 Cal. App. 2d 422 - Cornitius v. Cornitius