Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 F.2d 534 - Davis v. Peerless Insurance

Davis v. Peerless Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

255 F.2d 534 · 1958

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
May 1984
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 1984 · most notably United States v. Decoster (1976), De Rodulfa v. United States (1972)

44 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

2901958196019701980decided

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 Barry v. Edmunds · Perez v. Fernandez · Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. L. Bucki & Son Lumber Co. · National Ben. Life Ins. v. Shaw-Walker 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Before a writ of attachment and garnishment is issued, the plaintiff shall first file in the clerk’s office a bond, executed by himself or his agent, with security to be approved by the clerk, in twice the amount of his claim, conditioned to make good to the defendant all costs and damages which he may sustain by reason of the wrongful suing out of the attachment; except that in any case in which the plaintiff states in his affidavit that the value of specified property to be levied upon is less than the amount of his claim, the court may set the amount of such bond in an amount twice the value of the property being attached ....”
    2 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.