Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 WASH 430 - Bayer v. Bayer

Bayer v. Bayer’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2003

20 state decisions

801915192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Palmquist v. Sagstad · Alaska Banking & Safe Deposit Co. v. Noyes · State ex rel. Meyer v. Clifford · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Lasca · Filley v. Murphy

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

  1. ““The judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be set aside by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Sires, 21 Wash. 322 , 58 Pac. 209 . “ ‘The power to vacate judgments is an entirely different matter from the power to reverse judgments. It is a power inherent in and to be exercised by the court which rendered the judgment, and to that court and no other the application to set aside the judgment should be made. As between courts of coordinate jurisdiction, such as two county courts or circuit courts of the same state, the rule is that neither has power to vacate or set aside a judgment rendered by the other which is not void upon its face; relief must be sought in the court where the judgment was entered.’ 1 Black, Judgments (£d ed.), § £97.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Under the constitution, the superior court is a court of general jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction of equity cases, actions at law, and proceedings in probate. ... It has also been held that a court sitting in probate may settle issues and try a case as any other civil cause. Filley v. Murphy, 30 Wash. 1 , 70 Pac. 107 ; Sloan v. West, 63 Wash. 623 , 116 Pac. 272 . The constitution does not make the superior courts probate courts. On the contrary, it makes them courts of general jurisdiction including “all matters of probate.” ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The statute itself provides, ‘Such estates may be managed and settled’ without the intervention of the court. It does not provide that they must be managed by the executor without the intervention of the court. There is nothing in the statute which prevents an executor from invoking the jurisdiction of the superior court, whether it be called the equity or probate jurisdiction, if he deems it expedient to do so.””
    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.