Wilson v. Barbour’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1940
8 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 Tilton v. Cofield · Newell v. Whitwell · Sharman v. Huot · Mendes v. Freiters
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The writ was not void, nor was it, in its entirety, voidable. (See Hubbard v. Haley, (Wis.) 71 N. W. 1036 ; Emerson v. Thatcher, (Kan.) 51 Pac. 50 .) Though the amount stated in the writ be greater than that for which it should issue, yet, in the absence of bad faith in claiming the excess, the writ will be upheld for so much of the demand as is shown to.be properly included. This rule is within the principle announced in Newell v. Whitwell, 16 Mont. 243 , 40 Pac. 866 , and would seem to be a corollary of the doctrine declared in Mendes v. Freiters, 16 Nev. 388 . Defendant’s motion was directed to the whole writ, which he asked the court to discharge. He did not move a discharge as to the sixth and seventh demands, in respect of which, only, the writ was irregular. . . . Defendant’s remedy was by motion to discharge, modify, or-amend the writ as to the demands irregularly inserted therein. This the court has full power to do, under common-law principles (Tilton v. Cofield, 93 U. S. 167 ), as well as by virtue of Sections 110 and 774, Code Civil Procedure.””
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.