Tidd v. . Skinner’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably State v. Jeffers (1983), Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner (1962)
2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedTidd v. Skinner
Relationships
Relies on King v. Viscoloid Co. · Maxson v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad · Cuming v. . Brooklyn City R.R. Co. · Chapman v. . New Haven Railroad Company · Lawyer v. . Fritcher
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The common-law action which a master or parent has for loss of the services of a servant or minor child is based upon an injury to a property right. Compensation is allowed for loss of services to which the master or parent is entitled and for the expenses incurred by reason of such injury. . . . The weight of reason and authority is in favor of confining the damages to be recovered in an action by a third party to compensation for the pecuniary injury actually sustained.” (Tidd v. Skinner [1919], 225 N. Y. 422, 438, 434 , 122 N. E. 247 , 3 A. L. R. 1145.)”
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.