Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.1d 468 - Olsen v. Cahill

Olsen v. Cahill’s Empirical Analysis

119 F. 468 · 1902

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
April 1917
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

  1. ““This evidence does not furnish a very substantial basis for pecuniary damages, but, employing the latitude that is permitted, it is considered that there was some financial loss.””
    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.