Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as cited by the trial court, in Brown v. S. Ohio Sav. Bank & Trust Co. (1926), 22 Ohio App. 324, 153 N.E. 864, the First District Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he statute provides that persons interested in the estate may file exceptions to the inventory. We are of the opinion that ‘persons interested,’ as used in the statute, does not relate to parties claiming ownership of property inventoried in the estate.” See also Scott v. Mofford (1940), 64 Ohio App. 457, 18 O.O. 197, 28 N.E. 947 (allowing claimed equitable owner of property to assert her title to real estate in a subsequent action, despite failure to file exceptions to the inclusion of the property in the inventory of her father’s estate); Cole v. Ottawa Home & Sav. Assn. (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 1, 47 O.O.2d 1, 246 N.E.2d 542 (<HOLDING>). However, the Brown court further stated that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding (B) holding that the determination by the probate court in the summary proceeding provided for by section 211516 revised code that assets should be included in an estate makes the question of title res judicata as between all parties to the proceeding but the judgment of the probate court may be attacked in a subsequent action by other interested persons who were not parties to the proceeding in probate court (C) holding that a probate court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding to declare heirship because a court empowered with probate jurisdiction may only exercise its probate jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate when a probate proceeding related to such matters is already pending in that court emphasis added quoting bailey v cherokee cty appraisal dist 862 sw2d 581 585 tex 1993 (D) holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case (E) holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine
Output (English): holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine