Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Wash. 82 - Daniel v. Daniel

Daniel v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

1921

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
5
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2002

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

40192119301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 McDonald v. Lund · Lindley v. McGlauflin · Poultry Producers' Union v. Williams · Stirtan v. Blethen · Daniel v. Daniel

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.

  1. ““The appellant kept no books of account showing either the gross earnings of the property or the cost of its upkeep during the period of the accounting, and he is not in a position to complain because the evidence of the respondent was more or less indirect and circumstantial. Since it was his duty to account, and since his withholding of the respondent’s share of the 'earnings was wrongful, courts of equity do not in such cases (in the language of Mr. Justice Story) ‘proceed upon the notion that strict justice is done between the parties, but upon the ground that it is the only justice that can be done, and that it would be inequitable to suffer the fraud or negligence of the agent to prejudice the rights of the principal.’ ” (Italics supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.