Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 141 MOAPP 637 - Ozias v. Haley

Ozias v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
6
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc. (1978), Marcum v. Wengert (2001)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions

11019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Vineyard v. Lynch · Lamm v. Railey · Ferguson & McDaris Lumber Co. v. Tiede & Co.

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Our analysis of the statutes convinces us that the proper rule to be applied in this case is that stated in the following excerpt from the Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure, vol. 11, p. 31: “Where a set-off or counterclaim has been filed and allowed, wholly or in part, the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered will be entitled to costs in the absence of some special statutory provision changing the general rule which gives costs to the prevailing party. In other words, plaintiff is entitled, to costs if he has judgment for an amount in excess of the set-off or counterclaim allowed. By parity of reasoning, if the amount allowed as set-off or counterclaim exceeds the amount allowed on plaintiffs demand, defendant is entitled to costs.””
    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.