Champ v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1985
14 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 State v. Hovorka · Elston v. Jasper · State v. Stroschein · McAllister v. Rowland · Thorpe v. Hanscom
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is important that we bear in mind that in § 163 of the 1889 probate code the word ‘shall’ was used. When the revisers rewrote that and the other mentioned sections into R. L. 1905, § 3845, there must have been a reason or purpose for changing the word ‘shall’ to ‘may.’ We think the cases cited in 59 C. J. 1082, sustain this quotation from that authority: “ an amendment substituting “may” for “shall” manifests a clear intent to make the act referred to optional and permissive instead of mandatory.’ ””
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.