Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 CAL 260 - Eames v. Crosier

Eames v. Crosier’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
July 1941
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1941 · most notably Bell v. Pleasant (1904), California-Calaveras Mining Co. v. Walls (1915)

24 state decisions

110189419001910192019301940decided

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 Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co. · Jordan v. Grover · Ingersoll v. Herider · Curtis v. Sprague

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

  1. ““. It is a settled principle that if the party who transferred the instrument to the holder took the note for value, and before maturity, unaffected by any infirmity in it, the holder acquired as good a title, although he toolc the note luhen overdue.””
    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.