Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 KAN 210 - Printz v. Shepard

Printz v. Shepard’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
August 1982
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1982

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

401929193019401950196019701980decided

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 60 Tex. Civ. App. 10 - Parker v. Sweet · Dowd v. Heuson · Peevehouse v. Smith · Federal Agency Investment Co. v. Baker · Wickham v. Traders State Bank

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

  1. ““Sixth: . . . also one wagon, cart or dray . . . “Eighth: The necessary tools and implements of any mechanic, miner or other person, used and kept in stock for the purpose of carrying on his trade or business, . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘In construing exemption statutes, a number of courts have held an automobile is a “carriage” and exempt as such (Parker v. Sweet, 60 Tex. Civ. App. 10 , 127 S. W. 881 ; Peevehouse v. Smith [Tex. Civ. App.] 152 S. W. 1196 ); that it is exempt as a wagon “or other vehicle” under the Iowa statute (Lames v. Armstrong, 162 Ia. 327 , 49 L. R. A., n. s., 691); and even in our own case of Wickham v. Bank, 95 Kan. 657 , 149 Pac. 433 , this court more than ten years ago took notice of the fact that the automobile was rapidly and certainly superseding the “wagon” which was specifically exempted from seizure on execution under the statute of 1868.’ ” (p. 211.)”
    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.