White v. Bingham’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.2d 837 · 1928
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1959
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Chicago St Ry Co v. Coogan · Baltimore Co v. Groeger · Williams v. Vreeland · Empire State Cattle Company v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company No 178 Minnesota & Dakota Cattle Company · Neel v. Pennsylvania Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts, which was made a part of the ibill of exceptions by reference, and with the oral testimony at the trial constitutes the evidence in the case. “The question for our determination is whether this evidence, with all the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, was of such a clear and conclusive character as to justify the presiding judge in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs, and not submitting to the jury the determination of the validity of the gift to the wife. The facts were undisputed, but it is apparent that divergent inferences might be drawn therefrom. If there were reasonable inferences that might be drawn by the jury from the testimony and the acts of the decedent which would sustain a verdict for the defendant, the validity of the alleged gift should have been submitted to the jury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.