Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 195 U.S. 427 - Lockhart v. Leeds

Lockhart v. Leeds’s Empirical Analysis

195 U.S. 427 · 1904

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
9
states following
October 1997
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 19 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably Dann v. Studebaker-Packard Corp. (1961), Adams v. Bell (1983)

73 federal appellate · 19 district · 28 state decisions

4101904191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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. American Bell Telephone Co. · Sarah Boone v. William Chiles · Hayward v. National Bank · Erhardt Boaro

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

  1. ““There is nothing in the intricacy of equity pleading that prevents the plaintiff from obtaining the relief under the general prayer, to which he may be entitled upon the facts plainly stated in the bill.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We agree that the relief granted under the prayer for general relief must be agreeable to the case made by the bill, and that, in substance, is what is held by the above cases. The case made by the bill consists of the material facts therein stated; and where all the facts are stated, it is no reason for denying relief under a general prayer because it may differ from the theory of the law upon which the special prayer for relief is based, where both prayers are based upon the same facts, clearly set forth in the bill.” 195 U. S. 437 , 25 Sup. Ct. 79 ( 49 L. Ed. 263 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘All pleadings must be construed reasonably, and not with such strictness as to refuse to adopt the natural construction of the pleading- because a particular fact might have been more distinctly alleged, although its existence is fairly, naturally, and reasonably to be presumed from the averments made in the pleading.’ ””
    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.