Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 225 U.S. 651 - Pickford v. Talbott

Pickford v. Talbott’s Empirical Analysis

225 U.S. 651 · 1912

Citation profile

152
cited by 152 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 10 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 152 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), United States v. Mayer (1914)

58 federal appellate · 10 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 11 states

31019121920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on The Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Hodgson · Hendrickson v. Hinckley · Lansing v. Eddy · Taylor v. Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad

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

  1. “(1) a judgment which ought not, in equity and good conscience, to be enforced; (2) a good defense to the alleged cause of action on which the judgment is founded; (3) fraud, accident, or mistake which prevented the defendant in the judgment from obtaining the benefit of his defense; (4) the absence of fault or negligence on the part of the defendant; and (5) the absence of any adequate remedy at law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A court of equity does not interfere with judgments at law, unless the complaint has an equitable defense, of which he could not avail himself at law, because it did not amount to .a legal defense, or had a good defense at law, which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident, unmixed with negligence of himself or his agents.” 225 U. S. 651 , 32 Sup. Ct. 687, 56 L. Ed. 1240 .”
    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.