Humphrey v. Poss’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1980
3 federal appellate · 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 Standard Oil Co of California v. Johnson · Posey v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watts · Pound v. Gaulding · Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Ellenburg
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.
““Treated as an ordinary action, at law, the motion was due to be sustained, because the amendment worked an entire change of parties defendant. Van Landingham v. Alabama Great So. Ry. Co., 243 Ala. 31 , 8 So.2d 266 ; Copeland v. Dixie Construction Co., 216 Ala. 257 , 113 So. 82 ; Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside, 145 Ala. 617 , 39 So. 576 . But in harmony with the current of authority elsewhere (28 R.C.L. p. 824; 71 C.J. p. 974), this Court has often observed that in cases of this character technical rules of procedure are to be disregarded as far as practicable. Continental Gin Co. v. Eaton, 214 Ala. 224 , 107 So. 209 ; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Ellenburg, 215 Ala. 395 , 111 So. 219 ; Schloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron. Co., v. Watts, 236 Ala. 636 , 184 So. 201 . Or, as otherwise stated in Pittman Construction Co. v. Boles, 233 Ala. 187 , 171 So. 268 : ‘The procedure under this act is governed by its terms and requirements and not by the ordinary method of procedure.’ “The Minnesota Court in State [ex rel. London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Co. of Canada] v. District Court, 133 Minn. 402 , 158 N.W. 615 ;. L.R.A.1917D, p. 181, speaking of the matter of procedure in the Workmen’s Compensation Law of that State (from which ours was largely borrowed), held in effect" that if the real, parties are before the court, it is immaterial who may have brought the action in the first instance. In that case the administrator had first filed the complaint, and it appears that the depen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . The Court did observe, however, in the Pounds case that there was in fact no privity of contract between the employee and his employer’s insurance carrier, and that in the absence of some applicable statute authorizing suit to be brought directly against the insurer in the first instance by the employee on the contract, no such right exists.” 245 Ala. at 15 , 15 So.2d at 735 .”
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.