Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 Neb. 256 - Olson v. England

Olson v. England’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2020

24 state decisions

12019801990200020102020decided

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 National Exchange Bank v. Wiley · Long v. Magnolia Petroleum Company · Repp Ex Rel. Danielson v. Repp · Western Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Heart Mountain Oil Co. · Midland-Ross Corporation v. Swartz

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

  1. ““[a] judgment rendered in one State is subject to collateral attack in another State on the ground that the State in which the judgment was rendered had no jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject matter, even though it appears in the judgment record that the court had jurisdiction and extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish its invalidity....””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The purpose of a pretrial conference is to simplify the issues, to amend pleadings when necessary, and to avoid unnecessary proof of facts at trial. To that end litigants must adhere to the spirit of the procedure and are bound by the pretrial order to which no exception has been taken.”
    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.