Winston v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority v. Laburnum Construction Corp. (1954), Worrie v. Boze (1956)
9 federal appellate · 50 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 Cregin v. . Brooklyn Crosstown Railroad Co. · Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'n · Fort Worth Publishing Co. v. Hitson & Reed · Lee's Adm'r v. Hill · Mumpower v. City of Bristol
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, however, there were any doubt that the cause of action asserted in the present case survives at common law, it would seem clear that the action was rightly revived by virtue of the statute already alluded to. Code, § 2655 [now § 5385], “Under that statute, which is an extension of the statute 4 Edw. Ill, c. 7, de bonis asportatis, an action of trespass, or trespass on the case, may be maintained by or against a personal representative, not only for the taking and carrying away of goods, but for any damage to estate, either done or suffered by the decedent. It is a remedial statute, and is, therefore, to receive, as the English statute has always received, a liberal construction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All choses in action embracing demands which are considered as matters of property or estate are now assignable either at law or in equity. Nothing is excluded but mere personal torts, which die with the party. A claim, therefore, for property fraudulently or tortiously taken or received, or wrongfully withheld, and even for an injury to either real or personal property, may be assigned . . . (emphasis added) Even further in the in-depth analysis presented by this case, the Court goes on at page 918: In Lee’s Admr. v. Hill, 87 Va. 497 , 12 S.E. 1052 , 24 Am. St. Rep. 666 , this court said”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alderman v. Damewood“* * * Then what tort actions are assignable? The answer is: Such only as survive to or against the personal representative, if one of the original parties dies. Then what tort actions survive? The answer is: Those for wrong to property, real or personal, or which grow out of breach of contract, but not for wrongs done to the person or reputation, or any purely personal wrong, apart from property or contract. * * *.”
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.