Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 MO 421 - Hays v. Foos

Hays v. Foos’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2010

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

100190919101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “If counsel by expressed agreement, or even a tacit agreement, can obviate our rules, the efficacy thereof would be destroyed. It is not within the power of counsel by agreement, either expressed or implied, to obviate the provisions of the rules of this court. Those rules were established with the purpose of facilitating the business of the court, and to permit counsel to obviate the effect thereof by either a tacit or expressed agreement would leave the court powerless.”
    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.