Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 SO2D 171 - Holt v. Flournoy

Holt v. Flournoy’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2006

8 state decisions

501945195019601970198019902000decided

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 Young v. Geter · A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Ricard · Sliman v. Fish · Hamner & Co. v. Johnson · Schwartz v. Dennis

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

  1. “In cases of this character there is one question of prime importance, the answer to which inevitably determines the judgment, namely: Will the debtor be deprived, by the seizure and sale of the property involved, of a tool or instrument necessary for the exercise of his calling, trade or profession? There is, of course, a corollary to this question: Will the loss of the property seized prevent the debtor from continuing to follow the calling, trade or profession in which he has been engaged, and in which the particular property has been used?”
    4 later decisions 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.