Sittner v. Mistelski’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2012
15 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 Boggs v. Merced Mining Co. · First Church of Christ v. Revell · Kunick v. Trout · Narveson v. Schmid · United Accounts, Incorporated v. Larson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We cannot expect this farm wife, inexperienced in business and unfamiliar with probate and real estate law, to know the true state of the title to land, when none of the lawyers or the county judge concerned with the probate sale knew the title’s true state.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cranston v. Winters · Sabot v. Fox““ ‘[FJirst, that the party making the admission by his declaration or conduct was apprised of the true state of his own title; second, that he made the admission with the express intention to deceive, or with such careless and culpable negligence as to amount to constructive fraud; third, that the other party was not only destitute of all knowledge of the true state of the title, but of the means of acquiring such knowledge, and, fourth, that he relied directly upon such admission, and will be injured by allowing its truth to be disproved.’ ” Cranston v. Winters, 238 N.W.2d at 652 , supra, quoting Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 (1859).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sabot v. Fox
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.