Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 Ark. 903 - Beth v. Harris

Beth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2024

13 state decisions

70194519501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Bond · Corney v. Corney · Merchants' & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Ussery · Scroggin v. Hammett Grocer 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““There is no suggestion that any advantage of Jones was taken by opposing counsel. The contrary is conclusively shown. The depositions which he had taken were found in his files, but the exhibits had never been attached. This may account for the failure of Jones to file the depositions, and if so, the negligence and inattention of the clients themselves was responsible for the failure to file the depositions. However, the clients are bound by the inaction and inattention of their attorney. At Sec. 78, Ch. Attorneys, 5 Am.Jur. 306, it is said: ‘The courts will not usually relieve a party against the fault or negligence of his attorney, unless it is an extreme case where a clear failure of justice would otherwise result, particularly if the client is also negligent where, by diligence, he might have avoided the consequences of his attorney’s negligence.’ “Here we are asked to vacate a judgment after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, and to do so because of unavoidable casualty. In the case of Lawson v. Bettison, 12 Ark. 401 , it was held that when a person employs an attorney, he is concluded by his acts or omissions, where no fraud or unfairness is made to appear.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.