Hunt's v. Mutter’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1961
11 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 Combs v. Roark · Trevathan's v. Dees' Executors · Shields' Admrs. v. Rowland · Hill v. Ragland · Gross' Admr. v. Ledford
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of pleadings is to apprise an adversary of the issue he is required to meet. Wickliff v. First National Bank, 184 Ky. [783], 784, 213 S.W. 581 . It is a firmly fixed rule that a verdict will cure defective pleadings unless the substantial rights of the adverse party have been prejudiced. Hill v. Ragland, 114 Ky. 209 , 70 S.W. 634 , 24 Ky.Law Rep. 1053; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mengel Co., 220 Ky. [289], 290, 295 S.W. 183 ; Thoenis’ Adm’x v. Andrews, 231 Ky. 160 , 21 S.W.2d 250 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Haughton
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.