Roy v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 143 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Texas, the power of testators to appoint such personal representatives to administer their estates independent of the Court is provided by Art. 3436 of Vernon’s Civil Statutes of Texas, as follows: ‘Any person capable of making a will may so provide in his will that no other action shall be had in the county court in relation to the settlement of his estate than the probating and recording of his will, and the return of an inventory, appraisement and lists of claims of his estate.’ “Here Lunnie Boney, the testatrix, directed first that all of her debts be paid. Such an independent executrix may be removed by the Probate Court for the failure to pay debts. Subsec. c of Sec. 203 makes a declared purpose to pay debts a requisite of any farmer’s petition who seeks a composition or extension of his debts. Such is the sole purpose here. Such a will as Lunnie Boney’s at her death conferred no effective power upon the executrix named. No more after than before the death of the testatrix. It would remain inoperative and wholly ineffective until same was probated. It is only given life and legal force by the Court. It was the act of the Court in probating the will and issuing letters testamentary that empowered the executrix to act. Not any direction as to what to do, but all power to do anything is from the Court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. First State Bank v. Roach

2. “With reference to such matters the executor can do whatever the court could authorize to be done, if the estate was under its entire control. McDonough v. Cross, 40 Tex. [251], 280 [(1874)]. The limitation placed upon the powers of the court operates to confer authority upon the executor to do without action of the court those things which it is prohibited to order. This is the measure of the independent power conferred by law upon the executor, and the extent to which the prohibition upon the court goes. The prohibition upon the power of the court arises out of the existence of a trustee to whom the testator has chosen to confide those powers, ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kanz v. Hood

3. “In Prather v. McClelland, 76 Tex. 584 [ 13 S.W. 543 ], this court held that articles 1991-1994 [Rev.St. 1895], inclusive, are applicable alike to wills administered by independent executors and others, and that, after the probate of the will, the return of an inventory and list of claims, and the qualification of the executor, the probate court can exercise the power to annul a provision of a will, although it exempts the executor from the control of the court `in the settlement of the estate.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McAdams v. Wilson