Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Fla. 62 - Rhea v. Hackney

Rhea v. Hackney’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 34 Cal. App. 2d 383 - Cunha v. Anglo California National Bank (1939), Riley v. Wilkinson (1945)

2 federal appellate · 59 state decisions

140193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Fraze · Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. Wilkes Barre & Hazelton Railroad · The People v. . McCumber · State ex rel. Engelhard v. Weber · Larco v. Casaneuava

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

  1. “A plea is considered `sham' when it is palpably or inherently false, and from the plain or conceded facts in the case, must have been known to the party interposing it to be untrue. Pleading a matter known by the party to be `false' for the purpose of delay or other unworthy object, has always been considered a very culpable abuse against justice, and at common law was subject to censure and summary setting aside with costs. 1 Chitty on Pleading (7th Ed.) p. 541; 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 680.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"But a pleading cannot be stricken out as sham unless the falsity thereof clearly and indisputably appears. As otherwise expressed, to warrant the rejection of a pleading as sham, it must evidently be a mere pretense set up in bad faith and without color of fact. The rule cannot be applied to any case except where the defense is shown to be a plain fiction."”
    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.