Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 Okla. 247 - Dew v. Hoffman

Dew v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
February 1968
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1968

14 state decisions

10019281930194019501960decided

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 Gerber v. Wehner · Swartz v. Bigby · Caldwell v. Stiles · Chestnutt-Gibbons Grocer Co. v. Consumers' Fruit Co. · Dickerson v. Incorporated Town of Eldorado

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

  1. ““Therefore, we may concede that at the time of the tender the ear was in substantially the same mechanical condition as when replevied, yet this might be immaterial as to its value at said times. Under the judgment in the replevin action, which was not appealed from and became final, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $2,300, unless the car was returned in substantially the same condition and value as of the date the cause was instituted; that is, without material depreciation in value. The car was taken under writ of replevin on July 23, 1924, and the tender was not made until Hay 8, 1926. The evidence is undisputed that there was a large depreciation in its value during this time. This was sufficient to enable the plaintiff to recover, although there may have been evidence that the car was in as good condition mechanically as at the time replevied.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and the only dispute is as to immaterial issues, it is not error for the court to direct a verdict. Dickerson et al. v. Incorporated Town of Eldorado,. 64 Okla. 142 , 166 Pac. 708 .””
    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.