Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 Md. 548 - Huff v. Simmers

Huff v. Simmers’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
July 1981
most recently cited

2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1981

2 district · 13 state decisions

5019111920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Acker, Merrall & Condit Co. v. McGaw · Richard J. Biggs & Co. v. Langhammer · Brooke v. Winters · Reynolds v. Manning, Stimpson & Co. · Canal Company's Case

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

  1. ““It has been held that the fact that the plaintiff, during the period when he might have enforced his claim, by suit, if he had one, was in indigent circumstances, and needed the use of the money, is a circumstance tending to justify the presumption that the demand has been paid or otherwise satisfied. “In addition to this circumstance, affording a presumption of payment under the facts in this case, we have the further fact of the actual payment by his mother of substantial sums of money during the identical period embraced in the bill of particulars.””
    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.