Scotton v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 1979 · most notably Mackenzie Oil Co. v. Omar Oil & Gas Co. (1923), J. L. Davis, Inc. v. Christopher (1929)
52 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 Menendez v. Holt · McLean v. Fleming · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. · Burnham v. Kempton · People ex rel. Sackmann v. Keechler
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While as against even a wrongdoer the aggrieved party may not himself work an injury, yet he is not to be held to a strict and hard punctiliousness in saving the offender from the consequences of his own wrong. The complainants had a right to take a reasonable amount of time to observe the nature of the business the defendants were going to pursue, to witness for a reasonable time its effect upon their own business, and to deliberate upon the course they should pursue."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Turek v. Tull · Turek v. Tull“In the case before me, the damages range from a nominal sum to as high as twelve thousand dollars, which is the sum contended for by the complainants. They are typically unliquidated in character. Being such they fall peculiarly within the province of a jury to ascertain * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Turek v. Tull · Tull v. Turek““If August, 1920, be taken as the extreme point of time from which the complainants noticed the Wright competition, then a period of fourteen months intervened from then until the filing of the bill. The precise length of time intervening between the acquiring of knowledge that the new business was in fact competing with the old business and the filing of the bill, is difficult to fix. But at whatever- point it is fixed, I am of opinion, under all the circumstances, that the complainants acted with due diligence. They were entitled to watch their situation for a reasonable length of time in order to observe the extent of the inroads, if any, that would be made upon their business.” .. ,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Schultz
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.