Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 Mich. 161 - Pear v. Graham

Pear v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
August 1986
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1986

6 state decisions

20193219401950196019701980decided

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 Beaver v. Slane · Lando v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Obermeier v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. · Rohr v. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad · Howcroft v. Detroit United Railway

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

  1. “That in any civil action hereafter commenced in this State, whenever the defendant shall have entered upon his defense to the action in open court, the plaintiff shall not be allowed to discontinue his suit or submit to a nonsuit without the consent of the defendant.”
    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.