Brindjonc v. Brindjonc’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1961
8 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 State ex rel. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co. v. Clancy · Wilson v. Harris · Johnson v. Lundeen · State ex rel. Durand v. District Court of the Second Judicial District · In re Downey
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That your affiant is informed, believes and therefore states that one of the defendants herein, to-wit: Mary Alice Bakken, has property which she unjustly refuses to apply toward the satisfaction of judgment herein. That the plaintiff has made diligent search and inquiry in the public offices of Cascade and Flathead County in an attempt to locate property or obtain information regarding property owned by the said defendant, but that said efforts have been totally unsuccessful. “That your affiant verily believes and therefore states that the defendant, Mary Alice Bakken, has concealed and is concealing assets of unknown nature and extent which this plaintiff is entitled to reach upon execution and the satisfaction of his judgment. “That your affiant is informed, believes and therefore states that the defendant, Mary Alice Bakken, is presently residing with Mrs. Mary Swetnam, the defendant’s mother, in the Bear Dance Orchard Tracts, Bigfork, Flathead County, Montana, and that the testimony of the said Mrs. Mary Swetnam is necessary to a determination of the matters herein involved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Belote v. Bakken““* * * The first section is applicable to cases wherein the judgment creditor has no knowledge of the existence of any property of the defendant subject to levy under execution. The second section is applicable where the judgment creditor has knowledge of property belonging to the defendant, but which he has been unable to locate or have it levied upon tindery the execution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Belote v. Bakken
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.