Cagle v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2006
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Rutledge v. Fishburne · Farr v. Gilreath · Buck, Hefflebower & Neer v. Martin · Mauldin v. Mauldin · Harris v. Harris
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If in consequence of the culpable omission or neglect of the guardian ad litem the interests of the infant are sacrificed, the guardian may be punished for his neglect as well as made to respond to the infant for the damage sustained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fleming v. Asbill
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.