Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 F.2d 158 - Brill v. Mushinsky

Brill v. Mushinsky’s Empirical Analysis

194 F.2d 158 · 1952

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
February 1971
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 1971

10 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

120195219601970decided

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 United States v. 2,877.37 Acres of Land · Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. C. A. Wagner · Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. La Gue

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

  1. ““It is not necessary that an expert witness show that he has inspected the property at the date as of which evaluation is to be made, in order to qualify him to express an opinion. More frequently than not, an appraisal contemporaneous with the valuation date cannot be had, and retrospective appraisals are of necessity admitted. The weight to be given the opinion of the witness was a matter for the argument of counsel and the determination of the jury, but clearly, we think, the witness was qualified to express an opinion.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Aycrigg v. United States
  2. ““It seems to us that, when the vendor and the vendee both attached their signatures to the contract containing the price of $27,000, there was a completed contract.” 2”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Braun v. Yaffee

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.