Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 Mich. 145 - Smith v. McCluskey

Smith v. McCluskey’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
April 1939
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bergen v. . Urbahn, Etc. · Petherick v. General Assembly of Order · Walker v. Buhl · Martin v. McReynolds · Rice v. Wilson

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

  1. ““The probate judge testified that he informed Harry H. Hartshorn, one of the sureties on the first bond, that ‘automatically we considered the discharge of the bond as soon as the new bond was filed.’ It is urged that he was in error in doing so; that the statutory requirement as to notice had not been complied with. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 15880 (Stat. Ann. § 27.3059); Rice v. Wilson, 129 Mich. 520 . While the action was against McCluskey and the sureties on both bonds, the judgment was entered against the Fidelity & Deposit Company alone. The plaintiff not having assigned error, the question of concurrent liability is not before us for consideration. “The judgment is affirmed.””
    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.