Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 KAN 357 - Smith v. Griffith

Smith v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
3
states following
May 1978
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1978

10 state decisions

401919192019301940195019601970decided

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 Davis v. Clark · Norman v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Gemienhardt v. Ward · Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Simmons

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. ““. . . The result is, a depositary is always something more or something less than an ordinary agent, and accuracy permits us to say no more than that the depositary is an intermediary between vendor and vendee, having the specific powers and duties created by the escrow agreement, and no others.” (p. 360.)”
    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.