Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 SO2D 190 - Argenbright v. JM Fields Co.

Argenbright v. JM Fields Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2016

21 state decisions

60196719701980199020002010decided

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 New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Kinney · New York Cent Co v. Kinney · Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Company · Griffin v. Workman · I. Epstein & Brother v. First National Bank

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. “J.M. Fields Co., a New Jersey corporation”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “J.M. Fields of East Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hile it is true that, as a general rule, there would be no obligation upon either [the original defendant or its] attorney, to advise .plaintiffs attorney of his mistake, before the Statute of Limitations had run ... and, as a general rule, one in the position of a plaintiffs attorney must be diligent in ferreting out the proper parties defendant before suit.... [N]o such rules, or absence of rules, can be raised to defeat a party where by the overt acts and inexcusable conduct of the other, he has been lulled into a position of false security.”
    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.