Riverside Tp. v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
211 F. 873 · 1914
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1937
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 The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. Dandridge · Headley v. Cavileer · United States v. Thomas Fillebrown Jr · Downie v. Board of Chosen Freeholders · Wahl v. Water Commissioners
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The next question concerns the right of the plaintiff to recover for extras not covered by the contract and for which the plaintiff produced no written order signed by the engineer and the township committee. In that regard the contract provided that the plaintiff should not be entitled ‘to receive payment for any extra work as extra work unless such bill for extras be accompanied by an order in writing from the engineer and said township committee, who shall fix the price for such work. ’ The court admitted proof which “tended to show that at regular meetings of the township committee and acting as such the committee, the engineer and the plaintiff fully discussed and considered such extra items and work, and the plaintiff was then directed to proceed with them; they saying ‘their word was as good as their contract. ’ That a contract requirement such as here provided may be subsequently waived by the parties is established by the authorities. Headley v. Cavileer, 82 N. J. L. 635 , 82 A. 908 [ 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 564 ]; Kilby v. Hinchman, 132 F. 960 , 66 C. C. A. 67 . The court therefore was not in error in admitting testimony tending to show such waiver. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall not be lawful for tbe Board of chosen freeholders, * * * of any county, * * * to pay or disburse out of any of tire monies of the said county, * * * to any person, unless the person claiming or receiving said monies shall first present to the party or parties paying any such monies, a detailed bill of items or demand, * * * with the affidavit of the party claim-' ing payment of said bill or demand that the same is correct.””
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.