Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.2d 423 - Cook v. Ball

Cook v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis

144 F.2d 423 · 1944

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2016

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

8019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Pepper v. Litton · Baumgartner v. United States · Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury · McMullen v. Hoffman · Loughran v. Loughran

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

  1. ““What, then, was the purpose of placing this provision in the contract, a provision which every one knew could not be complied with? And, the answer was: ‘It is clear that it was the intention of the parties to the contract to prevent creditors from acquiring any interest in the 8,250 shares of stock by judgment against the partnership ... or other legal process’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.