Crandall v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 2000
3 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 Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. McCarty · Ward-Harrison Co. v. Kone · Markum v. Markum
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The element wanting is an unconscious ignorance that the $60,000 in question had been paid to appellants at the time the overpayments were made. * * * In our opinion there is a total lack of evidence to support a finding of mistake on the part of ap-pellee. Appellee knew the appellants were receiving one-eighth of seven-eighths. He was receiving a portion of the seven-eighths. He knew what his interest was, he knew how much he was receiving. He knew the location and extent of production.””
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.