Milstid v. Pennington’s Empirical Analysis
268 F.2d 384 · 1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1995
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 London v. G. L. Anderson Brass Works · Porter v. Henderson · Nettles v. Lichtman · First Nat. Bank of Birmingham v. Love · Henry v. White
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.
““Appellants cite two cases (Dixon Lumber Co. v. Peacock, 217 Cal. 415 , 19 P.2d 233 ; McNally v. Emmetsburg Nat. Bank, 197 Iowa 602 , 192 N.W. 925 ) which hold that a conveyance in lieu of alimony is not voluntary but supported by valuable consideration as to existing creditors. It is our opinion that Alabama follows that view, as indicated in the authorities cited in the margin.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Denaburg
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.