Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 COLOAPP 214 - Mumford v. Wright

Mumford v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1898

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
5
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2015

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

401898190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Byxbie v. . Wood · Kreutz v. Livingston · Home Insurance v. A. T. & S. F. R. R. · Stanwood v. Sage · Letson v. Brown

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

  1. ““Torts may be divided into two general classes — the first, designated as ‘property torts,’ embracing all injuries and damages to property, real or personal; the second, known as ‘personal torts,’ including all injuries to the person, whether to reputation, feelings, or to the body. A tort which is not an injury to property is a personal tort.””
    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.