Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 Ark. 619 - Rogers v. Hill

Rogers v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2011

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

801950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Williams v. Davis · Jowers v. Phelps · Trapnall v. Burton · Gambill v. Wilson · Shields v. Smith

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

  1. ““The doctrine of estoppel in pais was early recognized in decisions of this court and is available as a defense to a claimed right either at law or in equity. See Gambill v. Wilson, 211 Ark. 733 , 202 S.W. 2d 185 . In the recent case of Williams v. Davis, 211 Ark. 725 , at page 731, 202 S.W. 2d 205, 208 , we quoted with approval, this statement in Jowers v. Phelphs, 33 Ark. 465 : ‘Estoppels in pais depend upon facts, which are rarely in any two cases precisely the same. The principle upon which they are applied is clear and well defined. A party who by his acts, declarations, or admissions, or by failure to act or speak under circumstances where he should do so, either designedly, or with willful disregard of the interests of others, induces or misleads another to conduct or dealings which he would not have entered upon but for this misleading influence, will not be allowed, afterwards, to come in and assert his right, to the detriment of the person so misled.’ ””
    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.