Cutter v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1974
7 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 Adams Mining Co. v. Senter · O'Neil v. Greenwood · Laird v. Laird · Chaddock v. Chaddock · Colwell v. Keystone Iron Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is permissible, and often the agent of one party to a transaction is appointed by the adverse party as his agent for certain purposes, and each party will then stand in the relation of principal to the agent as to the matters by him entrusted to the agent, and as to those alone. 2 C. J. p. 448. This rule has been frequently asserted by this court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roach v. Plank
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.