Ely v. Joslin’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1965
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 Niquette v. Green · Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad v. Board of Commissioners · Durham v. Hadley · Chinn v. Bretches · Piazzek v. Harman
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under the circumstances a tender of the money then would have been useless, as the defendant, by words and conduct, had indicated that he was unwilling to perform. It has been decided that ‘where one party by his acts renders a tender useless and foolish, the other party is not required to make the tender.’ (Chinn v. Bretches, 42 Kan. 316 , Syl. ¶ 2, 22 Pac. 426 . See, also, Railroad Co. v. Comm’rs of Chase Co., 49 Kan. 399 , 30 Pac. 456 ; Piazzek v. Harman, 79 Kan. 855 , 98 Pac. 771 ; Niquette v. Green, 81 Kan. 569 , 106 Pac. 270 .)” (p. 643.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wells v. Higgins
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.