Kerr v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1999
12 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 Marx v. Hanthorn · Small v. Hull · Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Ravalli County · Martin v. Glacier County
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Some contention is made that actual knowledge of the proceedings by the plaintiff bars him from relief. The record does not disclose that the plaintiff had the knowledge required to be given him by section 2209; and, furthermore, it is the notice given by the applicant, as required by the statute, which is controlling. Therefore there is no merit in this contention.” Kerr v. Small (1941), 112 Mont. 490, 494 , 117 P.2d 271, 273 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Edwards v. Walters
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.