Hughes v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

cited by 16 later decisions

states following

February 1973

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1973

2 federal appellate · 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 Salem Brick & Lumber Co. v. LeSassier · Neith Lodge, No. 21, I. O. O. F. v. Vordenbaumen · Lichtentag v. Feitel

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

““In the case of widow Isaac Lichtentag v. Feitel et a 1. (recently decided by this court) 37 South. 880 , 1 we held that the surety by his actions and conduct had substituted himself for the contractor, and was estopped to deny his liability for materials furnished.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Lhote Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Dugué
“good and solvent security to the full amount of the contract for the payment of all the workmen, mechanics and laborers and all those who furnish materials and supplies actually used in the building.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Continental Casualty Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., Thomas Jordan, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross Texaco, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., Thomas Jordan, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross United Tugs, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Continental Casualty Company, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
“it should clearly appear from the terms of the instrument that it was intended to secure the statutory beneficiaries [furnishers and laborers], who are the real obligees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Continental Casualty Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., Thomas Jordan, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross Texaco, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., Thomas Jordan, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross United Tugs, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Continental Casualty Company, Defendants-Appellees-Cross

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.