Smith Engineering Works v. Custer’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2017
15 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 Huntington v. Attrill · Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta · In Re County Com'rs of Counties Comprising Seventh Judicial Dist. · Hughes v. Reed · Taylor v. Betts
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A. Civil actions other than for the recovery of real property can only be brought, within the following periods, after the cause of action shall have accrued, and not afterwards: ... 2. Within three (3) years: An action upon a contract express or implied not in writing; an action upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty; and an action on a foreign judgment; 3. Within two (2) years: An action for trespass upon real property; an action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property; an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract ..."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under Title 19 O.S.1941, § 323, a county commissioner is required to execute a bond, before entering upon the duties of his office, in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars, the amount and sufficiency of the bond to be determined by the county judge. In compliance with this statute the commissioner executed a bond, the conditions of which obligated the sureties if the commissioner did not faithfully perform all his duties as required by law. A violation of Section 479, above quoted, was unlawful, which makes the commissioner personally liable together with his bondsmen.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When an officer, executor or administrator within this State, by misconduct or neglect of duty, forfeits his bond or renders his sureties liable, any person injured .thereby, or who is, by law, entitled to the benefit of the se curity, may bring an action thereon his own name, against the officer, executor or administrator and his sureties, to recover the amount to which he may be entitled by reason of the delinquency. The action may be instituted and proceeded in on a certified copy of the bond, which copy shall be furnished by the person holding the original thereof.” in”
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.