Wait v. Kern River Mining, Milling, & Developing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 1982 · most notably Atkinson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1957), Holmes v. . Camp (1916)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-Cloth Co. · Fleishman v. Woods · White v. Sage · Stiles v. Cain
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant corporation was, as we have seen, organized under the laws of Arizona. But for all practical purposes, according to the record, it is a. California corporation. Its contemplated business was all to be transacted in this State, all of its property is here and it does business nowhere else. As was said by Judge Burton of another corporation in Young v. South Tredeger Co., 85 Tenn. 189 [ 4 Am. St. Rep. 752 ; 2 S. W. 202 ],”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McQuade v. Stoneham
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.