Baker v. Kamantowsky’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1951
1 federal appellate · 6 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 Hoover v. Peters · Copas v. Anglo-American Provision 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This would be a sale by one dealer to another, and not a sale to a consumer. Under such circumstances the rule of caveat emptor applies, if the purchaser had an opportunity to inspect the meat,- which he did in this case. Hoover v. Peters, 18 Mich. 51 ; Copas v. Provision Co., 73 Mich. 541 ( 41 N. W. 690 ); Uniform Sales Law, § 15 (Act No. 100, Pub. Acts 1913).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zielinski v. Potter
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.