Churchill v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis
102 F. 38 · 1900
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1985
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Scott v. Hickman · Allen v. St. Louis Bank · Tyng v. Grinnell · Clay v. Freeman · Searcy County v. Thompson
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'in enforcing partnership claims, the representative of the last surviving partner is the proper plaintiff to collect outstanding accounts.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court held that the administrator of Martin’s estate was not entitled to bring an action against third parties to recover possession of any portion of the partnership lands (the suit was brought following Blake-more's death). The court stated, “[T]he death of Blakemore did not confer the right to the possession of this property to Martin’s administrator. On the contrary, upon the death of the surviving partner, Blakemore, the right to the possession of the partnership property devolved upon his representative.” Id. at 44 . The court then quoted with approval a passage from”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.