Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 MO 564 - Nelson v. Barnett

Nelson v. Barnett’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
October 1971
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1971 · most notably Bramell v. Adams (1898), Howe v. Mittelberg (1902)

2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

110189419001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Packet Company v. Sickles · Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown Steam-Packet Co. v. Sickles · Sweet v. Maupin · Sheetz v. Kirtley · Gentry v. Gentry

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

  1. ““In order that any matter can be said to have passed m rem judicatam, it must have been tried and adjudicated -by' the court. [2 Woerner, Adm., Article 506, and cases cited.] And it .has been determined in this State that parol evidence may be introduced to show that certain matters, as to which the record is silent, were not passed on in a judgment of allowance in a probate court.””
    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.