Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 ARK 289 - Hooper v. Wist

Hooper v. Wist’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Hart v. Wimberly (1927), Coleman v. State (1975)

2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

8019191920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cassady v. Norris · Crittenden Lumber Co. v. McDougal · Jones v. Ainell · Clay v. Barnes

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.

  1. ““This brings us to a consideration of whether the present case is a direct or collateral attack on the former chancery decree. A direct attack on a judgment is usually defined as an attempt to reform or vacate it in a suit brought in the same action and in the same court for that purpose. On the other hand, a collateral attack upon a judgment has been defined to mean any proceeding in which the integrity of a judgment is challenged, except those made in the action wherein the judgment is rendered, or by appeal, and except suits brought to obtain decrees declaring judgments to be void ab initio. 15 R. C. L. 838, par. 311. This is the effect of our decisions in the cases above cited as well as numerous other decisions of the court.””
    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.