Dulaney v. Buffum’s Empirical Analysis
1903
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hilligoss (1908), York v. InTrust Bank, N.A. (1998)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 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 Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R. · Marx v. Hart · Gunther ex rel. Gunther v. Lee · Page v. Freeman · Haggerty v. Morrison
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is to be observed in respect to the point above considered, where the bar accrues in favor of some of the wrongdoers by reason of what has been received from or done in respect to one or more others, that the bar arises not from any particular form that the proceeding assumes, but from the fact that the injured party has actually received satisfaction, or what in law is deemed the equivalent. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Judd v. Walker
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.