Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.2d 404 - Mills v. Smith

Mills v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

113 F.2d 404 · 1940

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
February 1976
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

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

  1. ““We are convinced that the receiver would have been authorized to defend that litigation had he won. Only after he lost did he find he was without authority to defend the action. His appeals wherein he paid the expenses and attorney’s fees are in like position. The theory of lack of authority to prosecute appeals would not have occurred to the receiver nor to his counsel and authority would have been found in ratification had the appeals resulted in a reversal instead of the affirmance of the judgment. “We can not approve of such conduct which reflects both upon litigant and his defenses. In fact, we disapprove. Nor does the law require us to invalidate the judgment rendered under such circumstances.””
    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.