Foster v. Sawyer County’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2006
9 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 Pfingsten v. Pfingsten · Rice v. Ashland County · Ward v. Walters · Pier v. Oneida County
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reject words, or read words in place which seem to be there by necessary or reasonable inference, and substitute the right word for one clearly wrong, and so find the real legislative intent, though it be out of harmony with, or even contradict, the letter of the enactment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“shall be deemed invalid ... by reason of any mistake or irregularity in any of the tax proceedings not affecting the groundwork of the tax.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ection 1184 of the Revised Statutes of 1878”
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.