Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 U.S. 184 - Frank Cole Brown v. Charles Duncan Gurney No 97 Josiah Appleton Small

Frank Cole Brown v. Charles Duncan Gurney No 97 Josiah Appleton Small’s Empirical Analysis

201 U.S. 184 · 1906

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
September 2000
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2000 · most notably Cole v. Ralph (1920), Ickes v. VirGinia-Colorado Development Corp. (1935)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions

22019061910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Steel v. St Louis Smelting Refining · Perego v. Dodge · Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining Land Company · Jackson v. Roby

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But the Supreme Court applied the rule that where the existence of certain facts is assumed in the trial court and the trial proceeds, without objection, on that assumption, and the ease is decided in reliance thereon, neither party will be heard in the court of review to question there, for the first time, the existence of the facts, and especially not where the alleged omissions might have been supplied if called to the attention of the trial court, and properly applied it, for the identity of the ground in controversy and the validity of the original Kohnyo location were conceded by both parties; and, indeed, counsel really does not deny them as matters of fact, but simply objects that the stipulation did not include them.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.