Perdue v. Sherman’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Bender v. Liebelt (1981), Suburban Sales & Service, Inc. v. District Court of Ramsey County (1980)
29 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 H. F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe · Hutton v. Fisher · City of Wahpeton v. Drake-Henne, Inc. · Kinsella v. Kinsella · Booth v. Magee Carpet Company
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e interpret the telephone conversation ... between the attorneys ... as establishing an appearance by Sherman. It is so described in the letter from the attorney for Sherman to the attorney for Perdue.... That letter concludes: “It is also my understanding of our discussion that you would note our appearance on behalf of the defendant in this case.” The affidavit of the same attorney states that during the telephone conversation he “orally made an appearance on behalf of the defendant, James Sherman, in the above entitled action;” and that he indicated to the attorney for Perdue that he “was making an appearance on behalf of said defendant [Sherman] in the above entitled action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise appear and the fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the court may direct the clerk to enter an appropriate judgment by default in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: “(3) ... If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he . . . shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least eight days prior to the hearing on such application.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Svard v. Barfield
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.