Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 247 Ala. 260 - Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
September 1984
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 1984 · most notably Sparks v. State (1953), Brown v. State (1946)

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

15019451950196019701980decided

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 Rainey v. State · Comer & Co. v. Way & Edmundson · Loventhal & Son v. Morris · Barber v. Martin · Walker v. Trotter Bros.

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

  1. ““If it was an adjustment of all unliquidated contentions between them, it was a stated account, for if .those matters were not adjusted it was not a stated account and the plaintiff could not recover on such account. * * * “Plaintiff claims to have proven without conflict its replication to the effect that defendant acknowledged in writing the correctness of the account and that said acknowledgment is the basis of its claim that the account has been stated. In other words, that defendant’s contentions as to the quality of the fuel oil were included in the liquidation of the account. If that be the state of the evidence without conflicting inferences the claim of plaintiff would be well taken. The Court of Appeals held that the so called written acknowledgment was not of that sort, without conflicting inference; but that the jury could ‘infer all this statement was a bookkeeping matter to balance accounts and no acknowledgment of correctness otherwise.’ Upon that interpretation of the evidence, plaintiff was not due the affirmative charge, and we are not willing to overturn the construction of the evidence which was made by the Court of Appeals, nor the inferences drawn from it.””
    3 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.