King v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1987
2 district · 8 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 Bailey v. Taaffe · 152 Mo. App. 1 - Hall v. McConey · Carmichael v. Carmichael · Hanthorn v. Oliver · Mitchell v. Campbell
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a legal discretion to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“construed liberally to the end that every litigant shall have his day in court and his rights and duties determined only after trial upon the merits of the controversy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect”
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.