Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 KAN 578 - Mickel v. Hicks

Mickel v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

1878

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
6
states following
April 1945
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 1945

18 state decisions

7018781880189019001910192019301940decided

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 Valle v. Fleming · Sibley v. . Waffle · Morris v. Hogle · Gibbs v. Shaw

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

  1. ““While therefore judicial sales ought to be upheld as against any mere errors, yet it is not too much to require purchasers at such sales to examine the records so far as to see that the adverse parties received proper notice of the proceedings, and had therefore the opportunity to contest them.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where the court determines what kind of notice must be given, no right to give any notice exists until the court has made its determination. ... A notice, without an order prescribing the manner .thereof, has no force.” (Page 582.)”
    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.