Noble v. Noble’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1981
2 district · 11 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 Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · Finlay v. Finlay · Heath · Pacific Elevator Co. v. Portland · Hutto v. Walker County
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * Repeals by implication are not favored, and before such repeal is established there must be between two acts `plain, unavoidable, and irreconcilable repugnancy, and even then the old law is repealed by implication only pro tanto, to the extent of the repugnancy.' Messick v. Duby, 86 Or. 366, 371 , 168 P. 628 (citing 36 Cyc. 1073); * * *." (Emphasis added.) Noble v. Noble, 164 Or. 538, 549 , 103 P.2d 293 (1940).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shumway“being special and statutory, the court has only such powers as the legislature has granted it”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rodda v. Rodda
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.