Maday v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1988
13 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 Murphy v. McIntyre · Miner v. Dickey · Peters v. Canfield
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Mere default had not worked a forfeiture at the time the notice to quit was served. Nor did that notice in terms constitute a declaration of forfeiture. A declaration of forfeiture must be clear and unambiguous, conveying an unquestionable purpose to insist that the forfeiture has accrued. No such purpose is deducible from the notice given.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““To deliver up possession of the described premises which you now hold of me as my tenants or pay to me the rent now due for said premises, for which you are justly indebted to me and which you have neglected to pay. ’ ’”
1 later decision 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.