11 E.H. Smith 301 - Ward v. . Petrie’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 17 Cal. 2d 13 - Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941), Stephens v. . Meriden Britannia Co. (1899)
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Adler v. Fenton · McCorkle v. . Herrman · Mandeville v. . Avery · Findlay v. McAllister · Van Pelt v. . McGraw
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is a difference between capacity to sue, which is the right to come into court, and a cause of action, which is the right to relief in court. Incapacity to sue exists when there is some legal disability, such as infancy or lunacy or a want of title in the plaintiff to the character in which he sues. The plaintiff was duly appointed receiver and has a legal capacity to sue as such, and, hence, could bring the defendants into court by the service of a summons upon them even if he had no cause of action against them. On the other hand, an infant has no capacity to sue, and, hence, could not lawfully cause the defendants to be * brought into court even if he had a good cause of action against them. Incapacity to sue is not the same as insufficiency of facts to sue upon" ( Ward v. Petrie, 157 N.Y. 301 , 311, 51 N.E. 1002 [1898] ).”
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.