Miller v. Burkett’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1974
1 federal appellate · 5 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 Sherwood v. Wise · Carter v. Rubrecht · Maynard v. Maynard's Adm'r · 113 Cal. App. 30 - Deberry v. Cavalier · Bank of Buffalo v. Venn
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.
““In determining what sum will adequately compensate an attorney for his services, the court may properly consider the amount which is involved in the litigation and intricacies of fact and law, and every other fact or circumstance which will enable the court to fix a sum which will fairly com-pensaté the attorney for his services.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Eagle
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.