Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 Okla. 452 - Baker v. Deichman

Baker v. Deichman’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2015

15 state decisions

40193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Johnston v. Standard Mining Co. · Crosby v. Di Palma · Hruska v. Gibson · Chouteau v. Hoss · Drew v. Thurlwell

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “loss of evidence, death of witnesses or parties, or other developments, rendering it inequitable to continue permission to prosecute”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““An action does not abate by the death or other disability of a party, or by the transfer of any interests therein, during its pendency, if the cause of action survive or continue. In case of the death or other disability of the party, the court may allow the action to continue by or against his representative or successors in interest, upon such terms and in such time as may be just under the circumstances presented. In case of any other transfer of interests, the action may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.””
    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.