Whitney v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis
1889
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1969
2 district · 16 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 Swepston v. Barton · McKenzie v. Ohio River Railroad · Whallon v. Bancroft · Franklin v. Kelley · Lampe v. Manning
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It will be noted that the provision is silent when the notice of contest shall be filed. The defendant contends that the notice must not only be served, but must also be filed within thirty days. It was not filed until the twenty-third day of August, nearly fifty days thereafter. By reference to the cases decided in this court, the practice has been to file the notice within thirty days, and such undoubtedly has been the construction given to the statute by the profession. In Minnesota there was a like statute, and from which it is supposed our statute was taken, although it may have been from some other state, and the only construction which the courts of that state has (have) ever given to the provision (sec. 2544) just cited, which has been brought to our observation, is found in Waller v. Bancroft, 4 Minn. 110 , wherein Flandrau, J., said: ‘This proceeding is instituted by the service of a notice by the party desiring to contest, upon the party in possession, within thirty days after the election/””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Osborne v. Zimmerman““Properly speaking, a summons Is only a process when issued from the office of a court of justice requiring the person to whom it is addressed to attend the court for the purpose therein stated. Under our Code the summons is a process to commence a civil action. But technically such a summons is not a ‘process,’ but is more in the nature of a mere notice informing the defendant that an action has been commenced against him, and that he is required to answer the complaint therein within a specified time. In view of this distinction, such notice cannot be considered process in the sense in which that word is used in the books.””
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.