Herman v. Arndt’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1975
2 district · 6 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 Halsey v. Stewart · Michaelson v. Goldfarb · 95 N.J. Eq. 173 - Prescott v. Prescott · Kip v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. · Moore v. Richardson & Baldwin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The established rule of public policy in this state is that a non-resident party to a suit, and, with somewhat different form of relief, even a resident party, while necessarily going to, staying at or returning from the court, whether civil or criminal, is privileged from the service of a summons or of a capias in a civil action. Michaelson v. Goldfarb, 94 N.J.L. 352 (and earlier cases cited therein); Prescott v. Prescott, 95 N.J. Eq. 173 ; Michelin v. Michelin, 100 Id. 64; Golde v. Golde, 108 Id. 519; Kutschinski v. Kutschinski, 112 Id. 341; Brown v. Brown , Ibid. 600; Blair v. Vetrano, 12 N.J. Mis. R. 462. The reasoning appears sufficiently in Michaelson v. Goldfarb, supra , and Halsey v. Stewart, 4 N.J.L. 366 .”
2 later decisions 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.