Deitsch v. Wiggins’s Empirical Analysis
1873
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1978
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Deitsch v. Wiggins
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.
“the disposition of the business which presses upon us, and it is our intention hereafter to enforce strict compliance with its demands. If errors are not assigned in the manner required, the assignments will be treated as if not made at all, and we feel justified in passing without notice the greater number of those which are alleged to appear in this record. There are, however, some of the assignments which, though not made in full conformity with the rule, we think it is proper for us to consider. The action was trespass “ de bonis asportatis,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Deitsch v. Wiggins“Process was served on all of the defendants excepting Jonas Deitsch; as to him there was a return of ‘ not found.’ (Eecord, p. 3.) The defendants served with process pleaded: “1st. The general issue, and there was joinder thereon. “2d. A special plea, alleging in substance that Cozzens, the sheriff, took the goods mentioned in the declaration by virtue of a writ of attachment sued out by his codefendants against the firm of O. S. Buell & Co. (Record, pp. 4 and 5.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Deitsch v. Wiggins“If the jury believe from the evidence that, at the time defendant, Cozzens, was packing up the goods and chattels mentioned in the declaration, Moritz Deitsch was there assisting in selecting the same, without consent of plaintiffs, then he was guilty of trespass, and if ho had the consent of the said plaintiffs, it is incumbent on the defendant, Deitsch, to prove such consent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Deitsch v. Wiggins
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.