Stott v. Franey’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1994
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This is a wise and proper provision, and if we could see that the assignment of these warrants to the plaintiff made him interested in the job, within the meaning of this prohibition, it would be our plain duty to turn him out of court without any kind of redress. But here the evidence shows that the contract was completely executed before the assignment. All the contractors were to do had been performed, and what the plaintiff did was to take an assignment which entitled him to receive Woods’ part of the warrants. This fact does not bring the plaintiff within the purpose of this inhibition or within the letter of the statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boeder v. Taggatz““No member of the common council or any officer of the city shall be interested in any contract or job the expenses of which are paid out of the city treasury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boeder v. Taggatz
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.