Kilgore v. Bird’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 110 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 509 So. 2d 1097 - Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage (1987), 655 So. 2d 91 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston (1995)
2 federal appellate · 110 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 Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co. · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Thomasville · Bringley v. C. I. T. Corporation · Robinson v. the City of Miami · Miami Poultry Egg Co. v. the City Ice Fuel 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In ruling on objections to interrogatories, the rules of admissibility of evidence are controlling and should be applied. A question which elicits an answer not material to the issues should not be allowed. A question requiring an answer which would violate the civil rights of the witness should be prohibited, because if such right is violated the wrong cannot be righted. It, therefore, follows that requiring a witness to answer some questions may constitute error which may or may not warrant reversal on appeal and inflict no injury on the witness, while requiring the witness to answer other questions might so violate his civil rights as to make review on appeal entirely inadequate and would constitute such a departure from the essential requirements of the law as to make a ruling requiring the answer reviewable on certiorari to adequately protect the constitutional or lawful rights of the witness." [e.s.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In this case if it is duly shown that the order complained of violates the essential requirements of the law and reasonably may cause the very serious injury complained of which cannot be remedied by any other authorized proceeding, this court has the power and may in its discretion use the discretionary writ of certiorari to review the order if it satisfactorily appears that no other adequate remedy is afforded by law." ( 6 So.2d at page 541 )”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[when] no other adequate remedy is offered by law.”
2 later decisions 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.