Robertson v. Edelhoff’s Empirical Analysis
132 U.S. 614 · 1890
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1966 · most notably Magone v. Wiederer (1895), Gunther v. Liverpool L G Ins Co (1890)
6 federal appellate · 1 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 North Pennsylvania v. Commercial Nat Bank of Chicago · Arthur v. Morgan · Hendrick v. Lindsay · Board of County Com'rs of the County of Anderson v. Beal · Walbrun v. Babbitt
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The circumstances that a party at, the close of the case moves the court to direct a verdict in his favor does not, of course, operate to waive any right he may have to go to the jury. Such motion may be made upon the theory that some controlling proposition of law would require a decision in the party's favor, although some, or all, of the disputed facts were decided in .his adversary’s favor. But. if the court lie not convinced as to the soundness of his proposition of law, he is none the less entitled to have his hearing before the triers of Ihe fact upon any disputed material issues of fact in 1h(> case, unless in some way or other he waives Ms right, or leads the court to suplióse that he concedes there is no material fact in dispute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lawton v. Carpenter““The contention which appears to have been made on behalf of the government on the trial of the case, that these velvet ribbons could not be classified as trimmings used for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, or lioods (within the'moaning of the section levying the duty of twenty per* centum ad valorem), unless they were shown to have been used exclusively for ¡hat purpose, is not insisted upon by the solicitor general In this court, it was very properly abandoned, the charge of the court upon that point being, in our opinion, clearly right.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meyer v. Cadwalader““All goods, wares, and merchandise not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, fifty per centum ad valorem.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyer v. Cadwalader
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.