Erdley v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1965
2 federal appellate · 3 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 Gribben v. Maxwell · Bell v. Keepers · Basye v. Paola Refining Co. · Carbondale Investment Co. v. Burdick · Jeffers v. Forbes
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.
““. . . In this respect we think it lacks one very essential element, viz., an offer of restitution or to place the defendant in statu quo. “ ‘In nearly all jurisdictions a bill is demurrable in which complainant does not offer to return any consideration which it shows that he has received, or otherwise place defendant in statu quo, or sufficiently excuse himself from that duty.’ (9 C. J. 1241.) “ ‘The vendor or grantor seeking cancellation of a contract of sale or of a conveyance must, as a general rule, restore any cash payment which has been made, or property or property rights given in consideration of the sale or conveyance.’ (9 C. J. 1217.)” (p. 143, see cases cited at p. 144.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Demaree v. Boardman
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.