88 So. 3d 822 - Casey v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 672 So. 2d 497 - Ex Parte Integon Corp. · Jones v. Parker · Ex Parte Kelly · In Re Guardianship of Overpeck · Moody v. Bibb
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The administration or conduct of any guardianship or conservatorship of a minor or incapacitated person may be removed from the probate court to the circuit court, at any time before the final settlement thereof by the guardian or conservator of any such guardianship or conservatorship or guardian ad litem or next friend of such ward or anyone entitled to support out of the estate of such ward without assigning any special equi ty, and an order of removal must be made by the court or judge upon the filing of a sworn petition by any such guardian or conservator or guardian ad litem or next friend for the ward or such person entitled to support out of the estate of such ward, reciting in what capacity the petitioner acts and that in the opinion of the petitioner such guardianship or conservatorship can be better administered in the circuit court than in the probate court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rush v. Rush““When the Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (‘[the Act]’) was enacted in 1987, § 26- 2-2 was amended to reflect the terminology used in [the Act]. Compare § 26-2-2, Ala.Code 1975, as amended, 1987 Ala. Acts, No. 87-590, with Tit. 21, § 26, Ala.Code 1940 (1958 Recomp.) (‘The administration or conduct of any guardianship of a minor or person of unsound mind may be removed....;’), the language of which remained unchanged when Tit. 21, § 26, was first recodified as § 26-2-2 in 1975.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beam v. Taylor“numerous proceedings in the probate court concerning ... the appointment of a conservator,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Norvell v. Norvell
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.