26 App. D.C. 55 - Drew v. Hogan’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1973
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 Watson v. Jones · Fisk · Ayers Scott McCabe · Columbus Construction Co. v. Crane Co. · Abercrombie v. Riddle
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As no discretionary power was reserved to the trial judge, he could not dispense with this rule of court. As was said in Thompson v. Hatch, 3 Pick. [Mass.] 512: “ 'A duly-authorized rule of court has the force of law, and is binding upon the court as well as upon parties to an action, and cannot be dispensed with to suit the circumstances of any particular case. . . . The courts may rescind or repeal their rules, without doubt, or, in establishing them, may reserve the exercise of discretion for particular cases. But the rule, once made, without any such qualification, must be applied to all cases which come within it, until it is repealed by the authority which made it.’ ””
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.