Mudd v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.2d 85 · 1928
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1999
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. City of Newport · Mudd v. Perry · In re Antigo Screen Door Co. · Shull v. Boyd · Levin v. United States
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The county court shall have the general jurisdiction of a probate court. * * * It shall * * * transact all business appertaining to the estates of deceased persons, * * * including the * * * distribution of the estates thereof.’ ””
1 later decision 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.