Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 F.2d 124 - Crump v. Hill

Crump v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

105 F.2d 124 · 1939

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
September 2001
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2001

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

5019391940195019601970198019902000decided

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 In re Waynesboro Motor Co. · Spengler v. Stiles-Tull Lumber Co. · Kelly v. Reid · Paine v. Hall Safe & Lock Co. · Campbell Paint & Varnish Co. v. Hall

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

  1. “Assignments of choses in action are not within the ordinary recording acts, and filing or recording is not necessary to their validity in the absence of a statute particularly requiring it.”
    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.