Cazzell v. Cazzell’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 1975 · most notably Ramsey v. Hand (1959), Bush v. Bush (1944)
2 federal appellate · 29 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 Christisen v. Bartlett · Rogers v. Biggstaff's · Edinburgh Lombard Investment Co. v. Walsh · State ex rel. Brown v. Lyons · Hart v. Hart
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where matters which are an essential part of a judgment are inadvertently ■omitted from its written text, with the effect that it does not fairly recite what the court intended, and perverts that intention, the omitted matter may be supplied and the journal entry of judgment cori'ected even after the close of the term, at the instance of an interested party.” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A district court has the power to correct the entry of a judgment so as to cause it to speak the truth after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, and upon the personal knowledge of the judge of what took place in court at the time of its rendition.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . Indeed no lapse of time, however long, will preclude the correction of the judgment roll so as to make it speak precisely what the court intended. A notable instance of the application of this rule appears in the case of Rogers v. Bigstaff’s Executor, 176 Ky. 413 , where the nunc pro tunc order was made fifty-five years after the rendition of the judgment. . . .” (p. 768.)”
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.