Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 Cal. 97 - McKenna v. Heinlen

McKenna v. Heinlen’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
November 1947
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 1947

20 state decisions

11019001910192019301940decided

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 Ball v. Rawles · Grant v. Moore · Smith v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.

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

  1. ““The testimony is slight, and is substantially without conflict. Plaintiff introduced the pleadings and final judgment in the original action brought by defendant John Heinlen. These documents established the fact of final judgment only, and no inference is to be drawn from the failure of defendant in that action that he had not probable cause to bring it.””
    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.