Smith v. Oosting’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1968
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
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 Johnson v. Starrett · Fay v. Bankers Surety Co. · City of Alpena ex rel. Besser v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. · Lindquist v. Young · Rosman v. Bankers Surety Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But counsel argue that the question was settled in the case of City of Alpena, for use of Gilchrist, v. Surety Co., 168 Mich. 350 . In this case a claim was filed for coal used in a dredge which was used in constructing a submerged crib for waterworks in the city of Alpena. A further claim was made for parts and repairs for the dredge and pumps. The opinion in the case referred to assumed that the question of coal for use in propelling the machinery of the dredge had been settled in City of Alpena, for use of Besser, v. Surety Co., 159 Mich. 329 . In referring to that case it will be found no claim was filed for coal or for fuel. Mr. Justice Blair evidently classed fuel with the parts and repairs furnished for the dredge and pumps. It is quite probable that the distinction between fuel which is wholly consumed in aid of the work, and repairs and parts which enhance the value of the machinery and survive the work then engaged in, was not called to the attention of the court. In the case cited it was rightly decided that the claim made for repairs and parts was not protected by the bond. The error, if one were made, was in classifying fuel with ‘parts and repairs/ We think if this distinction had been called to the attention of the court at that time the court would have recognized and observed it in the opinion. On principle the distinction should be made, and we are inclined to make it in the present case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The provision of the judicature act referred to evidently intended to enlarge the remedy of a beneficiary in contracts so as to enable him to enforce his beneficial interest directly by suit in his own name.”
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.