Nicholson v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2018
2 federal appellate · 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 Coleman v. Henry · Hinchman v. City Water Co. · 9 Smith & H. 371 - Harrell v. American Home Mortgage Co. · 9 Smith & H. 363 - Sadler v. Mitchell
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The primary purpose of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act is the construction of definitely stated rights, status and other legal relations, commonly expressed in written instruments, though not confined thereto. Code 1932, sec. 8835 et seq.” “Courts have a wide discretion under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, which should be exercised with, utmost caution, and a declaratory judgment may properly he refused if it can be made only after a judicial investigation of disputed facts. Code 1932, sec. 8835 et seq.””
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.