Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 NEB 319 - Calloway v. Doty

Calloway v. Doty’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2017

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

401922193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Havemeyer v. Paul · Evans v. Fisher · Trompen v. Hammond · Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Westerhoff · Hyde v. Michelson

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

  1. “purpose of [an order nunc pro tunc] is to correct the record which has been made, so that it will truly record the action really had, but which through some inadvertence or mistake has not been truly recorded.”
    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.