Pietsch v. Wegwart’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2015
3 federal appellate · 4 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 Ludington v. Patton · 6 E.H. Smith 529 - Mason v. . Henry · Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'n · Pietsch v. Milbrath · Ott v. Hood
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under a statute which imposes the limitation in actions for `relief on the ground of fraud in cases heretofore solely cognizable in a court of chancery', if the action is at law or the remedy is concurrent, the statute has been held to have no application, although disguised as one seeking equitable relief, * * * where the allegations of fraud are incidental to, but not the ground of, the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.