Mitchell v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
147 F. 280 · 1906
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1982
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Etheridge v. Sperry · Glenny v. Langdon · Robinson v. Elliott · In re Garcewich
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.
““Except for sinister purposes it is difficult to imagine why a party, holding a mortgage on a stock of merchandise, when the statute provides for its registration, should wish to secrete the mortgage, carry it in his pocket, instead of putting it on record, thus giving notice to the commercial world of the financial condition of the mortgagor. The well-earned character of the state of North Carolina and of its native population for honesty, favoring a square deal, is in keeping with the law as decided in Cheatham v. Hawkins, 76 N. C. 335 ,” etc.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Covington v. Brigman
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.