Shuckrow v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 1956
18 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 United States v. Throckmorton · Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Township · McCormick v. McCormick · Blair v. Blair · Brenneisen v. Phillips
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the American Law Institute’s recent text on Restitution are simple illustrations of cases of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud where an independent lawsuit may and may not be maintained, viz.: “ ‘A obtains judgment against B by false testimony at the trial. B pays the judgment. On discovery of the facts, B brings an action at law against A for restitution. He is not entitled to restitution.’ (Sec. 72, p. 294.) “A plain case of intrinsic fraud. “ ‘A is sued by B, who kidnaps A’s witnesses and causes A to believe that they are dead. As a result of their failure to testify, B obtains judgment, of which A pays one-half. Discovering the facts, A brings a separate suit in equity seeking to have the enforcement of the judgment enjoined and asldng for restitution of the part already paid. A is entitled to this relief.’ (Sec. 72, p. 296.) “A plain case of extrinsic fraud.” (p. 409.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stafford v. Stafford““Counsel for the appellees seeks to justify the action on the ground that where the relief is on account of extrinsic fraud an independent action can be maintained. That rule of law is perfectly sound. But where such independent action is sought to be maintained, the question of vital concern is, Was the alleged fraud extrinsic or intrinsic? If the former, an independent action could be maintained to correct it, if brought in time and in conformity with the other provisions of the civil code. But if the fraud alleged was not extrinsic, then the requisite steps to secure redress must be taken in the identical case or in supplemental proceedings in that identical case in which the fraud was perpetrated, not in an independent lawsuit.” (p. 407.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laidler v. Peterson““From these instructive cases it will be seen that where an estate has been wound up and the administrator discharged this court has been rather lenient in-giving countenance to independent action for relief on account of fraud in the probate proceedings, and has not rigidly measured the aggrieved parties’ right to maintain them on the technical question whether the fraud complained of was extrinsic or intrinsic.” (p. 411.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laidler v. Peterson
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.