Thrasher v. Lustig’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2018
12 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 Burgess v. Trevathan · Holt v. Holt · McDaniel v. North Carolina Pulp Co. · Lee v. Lee · Lancaster v. Lancaster
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t must mean that the rules or methods by which the rights of the parties are to be finally worked out have been so far determined that it is only necessary to apply these rules or methods to the facts of the case in order to ascertain the relative rights of the parties with regard to the subject matter of the suit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“refers to principles which affect the subject matter of the litigation and the rules by which the rights of the parties to the suit are to be finally determined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Lewis“as a general rule interlocutory decrees or orders overruling motions as to joinder of parties, or a substitution of parties, are not appealable.”
1 later decision 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.