Crocket v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
20 U.S. 522 · 1822
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1942 · most notably Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904), Robert Devine v. City of Los Angeles (1906)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Massie v. Watts · Thatcher v. Powell · McClung v. Ross · Matson v. Hord
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principle advanced by the appellants’ counsel cannot be controverted. No rule is better settled than that the decree must conform to the allegations as well as to the proofs in the cause. * ::: * The counsel for the appellant [appellee?] says it would be monstrous, if, after the parties have gone to trial on the validity of the entry, and have directed all their testimony in the circuit court to that point, their rights should be made to depend in the appellate court on a mere defect in the pleadings, which had entirely escaped their observation in the court where it might have been amended, and the nonexistence of which would not have varied the case. The hardships of a particular case would not justify this tribunal in prostrating the fundamental rules of a court of chancery — rules which have been established for ages on the soundest and clearest principles of general utility. If the pleadings in the cause were to give no notice to the parties or to the court of the material facts on which the right asserted was to depend; no notice of the points to which the testimony was to be directed, and to which it was to be limited; if a new case might be made out in proof, differing from that stated in the pleadings — all will perceive the confusion and uncertainty which would attend legal proceedings, and the injustice which must frequently fake place. The rule that the decree must conform to the allegations as well as to the proofs of the parties is not only one which justic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Winne
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.