Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 SD 205 - Weber v. Tschetter

Weber v. Tschetter’s Empirical Analysis

1890

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
August 1993
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 1993 · most notably Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. Clark (1906), Calhoun v. Bryant (1911)

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

5018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Dwight v. . St. John · Mabry v. . Henry · People v. San Francisco & San Jose Railroad · Robbins v. Kountz

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

  1. ““We think that, where an issue of fact is distinctly and formally presented to the court for detetrminátion as a means of fixing the legal rights of the parties, the supporting evidence of both sides duly considered, and from which determination either party may appeal, the decision of the court -upon such issue ought to be held conclusive and final, without regard to the form in which such issue is presented — whether by action or motion; the important matter being that the issue be Well defined, so as to preclude doubt as to what question was before the court, that it be fully heard and litigated, each side having an opporT tunity to be heard, and that the court should judicially pass upon and decide it (citing Wilson County v. McIntosh, 30 Kan. 234 , 1 Pac. 572 .) * * * We regard this question of service as conclusively settled by the decision of the first motion, and the second motion, which is the subject of this appeal, must be considered and disposed of upon that theory. The second motion was an application addressed to the discretion of the court, that the said judgment as to defendant Wipf, and all subsequent proceedings, be vacated, and he let in to defend, under the provisions of section 4939, 'Compiled Laws.””
    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.