Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 225 MO 228 - Hector v. Mann

Hector v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
August 1989
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 1989 · most notably Tide Water Oil Co. v. Commissioner (1934), Hardeman v. Ellis (1926)

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

6019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Austin v. Loring · Cape Girardeau & Thebes Bridge Terminal Railroad v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co. · Meddis v. Kenney · Thomas v. Elliott · Fischer v. Siekmann

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

  1. “* * * There are estoppels and estoppels, and some forms of them are so defined by law writers and jurists as to make one element in the estoppel the knowledge and reliance of one party upon the acts and conduct of the other; for instance, estoppel in pais, arising from misrepresentation by word, act, conduct, or silence. But there are other forms of estoppel in which knowledge of the fact upon the part of the person invoking the estoppel, and reliance upon the fact and a change of situation based upon that reliance, is not an element. It may be that “ estoppel,” speaking with precision, is the wrong designation, and that in. attempting to classify and give names the doctrine we are about to invoke is improperly classified as “ estoppel,” and that it does not come under that head, but springs from election, ratification, affirmance, acquiescence, acceptance of benefits, or what not. It is classed, however, by law writers under the head of “ quasi estoppel.” (Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th Edition, p. 697; 16 Cyc. 787, et seq.). [Italics supplied.]”
    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.