State v. Otis Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Busik v. Levine (1973), McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino (1993)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 78 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. Sherwood · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Massachusetts v. Mellon
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“From the outset in New Jersey, following English precedents, the allowance of costs and counsel fees had been uniformly considered by the courts of this state to be a matter of procedure rather than of substantive law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kirk Mitzel Janet Mitzel, H/w v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Dravo Corporation Dick Corporation Cortec Industries, Inc., T/a, D/B/A Inland Buildings Davy McKee Corporation, T/a, D/B/A Davy Dravo Dravo Engineering Companies, Inc. Cortec Industries, Inc., T/a, D/B/A Summit Buildings S.B. Acquisition Company, T/a, D/B/A Summit Buildings, Dick Corporation Dravo Corporation, Third-Party v. A.C. Dellovade, Inc. Davy McKee Corporation, T/a, D/B/A Davy Dravo, Third-Party Kirk Mitzel and Janet Mitzel, by and With Their Attorneys, a Dragon Associates · Mitzel“From the outset in New Jersey, following English precedents, the allowance of costs and counsel fees had been uniformly considered by the courts of this State to be a matter of procedure rather than of substantive law. In accordance with this uniformly accepted view the Supreme Court, in the exercise of the rule-making power over practice and procedure granted it by article VI, section II, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of 1947, promulgated Rule 3:54-7 relating to counsel fees....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule which applies in the matter before me is that a court of equity will, in the exercise of sound discretion, order an allowance of counsel fees, payable out of a fund, to a complainant or directly to his counsel where he has, at his own expense, either maintained a successful suit for the preservation, protection or increase of a common fund, or brought into court a fund in which others, similarly situated, may share. [133 N.J.Eq. at 303]”
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.