Brandom v. McCausland’s Empirical Analysis
171 F. 402 · 1909
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
December 1953
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ming v. Woolfolk · Bradley v. Fuller · Austin v. Barrows · Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Dines
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the plaintiffs failed to show that they were damaged in fact, or the amount of their damages, the defendants' motion at the close of the testimony for a directed verdict should have been granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lammers v. Greulich
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.