Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 F.2d 375 - Orenberg v. Thecker

Orenberg v. Thecker’s Empirical Analysis

143 F.2d 375 · 1944

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
3
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Ryan v. United States (1951), Sherman v. Smith (1996)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

15019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mattox v. United States · McDonald v. Pless · Hyde v. United States · Norris v. State of Alabama · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States

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

  1. ““The questions propounded to the panel — and in response to which two jurors remained silent — were: (1) ‘Have any of you ever been plaintiffs in a case involving personal injuries in an automobile accident, or any other kind of accident? Have you ever presented a claim against anyone for personal injuries, whether arising out of an automobile accident or an accident in a store, apartment house or hotel?’ and (2) ‘Is there anyone else who has had a claim of any kind involving personal injuries ?' It can be too easily assumed that laymen, called from ways of life far removed from the courtroom, will understand words and terms of art customarily used by lawyers and judges. As a matter of fact, many such words are not well understood by lawyers and judges themselves. It would be a violent assumption that such laymen will be alert to give considered answers to questions containing several such words or terms, or that failure to respond constitutes concealment or a false answer. For example, even to lawyers and judges, such words as claim and presented have varied meanings. Some laymen, who have had no courtroom experience, do not know the meaning of plaintiffs, personal injuries and other words which were used in the questions propounded by counsel for appellants. Within the last year this court had occasion to decide a dispute between able counsel as to the meaning of the words plaintiff and defendant, as used by Congress in recent legislation. It would be asking a great deal of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`Claim,' in its primary meaning, is used to indicate the assertion of an existing right. In its secondary meaning, it may be used to indicate the right itself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.