Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 Ala. 579 - State v. Mudd

State v. Mudd’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1999

14 state decisions

401962197019801990decided

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 Wilkerson v. Wilkerson · Snodgrass v. Snodgrass · Perry County v. Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad · Oxford v. Estes · Hammons v. Hammons

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

  1. “[A] county, suing or being sued, is not exempt from the operation of the statutes of limitation, which cover the action sought to be enforced. They are not privileged from suit, under the principle, that `time does not run against the sovereignty.' They are not the State.”
    2 later decisions 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.