Aull v. Day’s Empirical Analysis
1896
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil (1911), Padgett v. Smith (1907)
32 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 Thomson v. Wooster · Blanchard v. Cooke · Parkinson v. Caplinger · Ohio Cent Co v. Central Trust Co · Murray v. Yates
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the first judgment in partition proceedings is merely interlocutory has often been declared by this court, and is so well settled that a citation of the cases is deemed unnecessary. [But see Murray v. Yates, 73 Mo. 15 .] “That such interlocutory judgments, made in the progress of a cause, are always under the control of the court until a final decision is reached, and may be modified at any time to meet the exigencies that may arise, is equally well settled. [Bobb v. Graham, supra.]”'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Colin v. Moldenhauer
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.