Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 MICH 335 - Atkinson v. Japink

Atkinson v. Japink’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
7
states following
February 1954
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 1954 · most notably Malone v. Meres (1926), Voges Motor Co. v. Ward (1929)

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions

20019151920193019401950decided

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 Harkness v. Russell · Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank · Winton Motor Carriage Co. v. Broadway Automobile Co. · Thirlby v. Rainbow · McBryan v. Universal Elevator Co.

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

  1. ““An examination of our own and of the decisions of other courts leads to the conclusion that they sustain, in the main, two propositions: First, that when the absolute title is reserved, retention thereof by the vendor is inconsistent with an action to recover the debt.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Plaintiff sold an automobile to defendant for $650. One hundred and forty dollars was paid in cash, and two notes for $185 and $325, respectively, were executed by defendant, payable to plaintiff. Each note reserved title to the automobile in plaintiff until it was paid, with the right to declare the note due and take possession of the car at any time plaintiff deemed himself insecure; to sell at public or private sale, and indorse the amount received upon the note. Plaintiff sold the notes, indorsing them, but not to the same purchaser. The smaller note falling due, plaintiff took it up from the purchasing bank, asked defendant to pay it, who refused to do so.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The fact that, by agreement, the title is to remain in the vendor of personal property until the notes for the price are paid, does not necessarily import that the transaction was a conditional sale.””
    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.