Latimer v. Milford’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 1960
16 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 Davis v. Anderson · Spence v. Spence · Emens v. Stephens · Booth v. Bates · Wood v. Amos
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A cross-bill is proper when it sets up new matter not in the original bill and prays for affirmative relief, or presents the same subject matter in a different aspect; or, as otherwise expressed, to obtain relief for any cause connected with or growing out of the bill. Section 6550, Code, as amended by Act of March 1, 1937, General Acts 1936-37, page 208; Emens v. Stephens, 233 Ala. 295 , 172 So. 95 ; Smith v. Maya Corporation, 227 Ala. 6 , 148 So. 621 ; Davis v. Anderson, 218 Ala. 557 , 119 So. 670 . [The following cases are supportive of the text contained in this paragraph: Nowell v. Nowell, 255 Ala. 107 , 50 So.2d 270 ; Collins v. Collins, 252 Ala. 517 , 41 So.2d 388 ; Hermione Lodge No. 16, Knights of Pythias of Decatur v. Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias of Ala., 248 Ala. 473 , 28 So.2d 166 , 168 A.L.R. 948 ; Peoples Sav. Bank v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 245 Ala. 398 , 17 So.2d 177 .] “But a cross-bill will not be entertained when the party filing it can obtain full relief in the process of adjudicating the issues tendered by the original bill. Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Co. v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 . “True, the original bill could have been amended to set up the matter contained in the cross-bill, and this was done after the cross-bill was filed. But the original bill would not be appropriate to relief when the facts are as alleged in the cross-bill. The cross: bill did bring forth new matter in respect to the subject of the ”
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.