Mitchell v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 566 So. 2d 723 - Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Jackson (1990), Suggs v. Alabama Power Company (1960)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. · Gladowski v. Felczak · 145 Ohio St. 321 - Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc. · 2 Ill. 2d 491 - Sweeting v. Campbell · Cox v. Brown
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that a final decree is conclusive as to all facts or issues decided therein and binds not only those who were parties to the litigation but also persons who are in privity with them. Sims v. City of Birmingham, 254 Ala. 598 , 49 So.2d 302 . “But the term ‘privity’ ‘denotes mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property.’ Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 225 U.S. 111 , 32 S.Ct. 641, 643 , 56 L.Ed. 1009 . And no one is in privy to a judgment whose succession to the rights of property thereby affected, occurred previously to the institution of the suit. Freeman On Judgments (5th Ed.), § 440, p. 966.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The question posed is whether or not the appellant must apply to this court before the time expires for the filing of the transcript or can he wait, as he did here, until his filing time has passed and then request this court for an extension of time. “The situation seems not to be covered by Rule 37, but the court, in general consultation in which all the Justices have concurred, has concluded that the application for the filing of the transcript here need not be made within the time (90 days) allowed in the lower court, but that on good cause shown this court may extend the time for filing the transcript either before or after the said 90-day' period allowable in the court below.””
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.