Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 Iowa 594 - Sinclair Refining Co. v. Burch

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Burch’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2009

15 state decisions

601944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Wood Bros. Thresher v. Eicher

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

  1. “"The filing of any claim shall not work the withholding of any funds from the contractor except the retained percentage, as provided in this chapter."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A] thing which is within the intention of the lawmakers is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “No part of the unpaid fund due the contractor shall be retained as provided in this chapter on claims for material furnished, other than materials ordered by the general contractor or his authorized agent, unless such claims are supported by a certified statement that the general contractor had been notified within thirty days after the materials are furnished or by itemized invoices rendered to contractor during the progress of the work, of the amount, kind, and value of the material furnished for use upon the said public improvement, and no part of such unpaid fund due the contractor shall be retained as provided in this chapter because of the commencement of any action by the contractor against the Iowa state department of transportation under authority granted in section 613.11. (emphasis added)”
    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.