Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 Okla. 334 - Dodder v. Moberly

Dodder v. Moberly’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 1990
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1990

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

40191119201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Wattenbarger v. Hall · Moore v. Calvert · Bray's Administrator v. Seligman's Administrator · Ellis v. Smith · Mayes v. Cherokee Strip Live Stock Ass'n

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

  1. ““On the part of Shive, the interpleader, it is contended that the court erred in overruling his motion to dissolve the attachment, made after the jury had by their verdict sustained his in-terplea. In this we concur. On the coming in of the verdict, the jury, in effect, having found that the attached property was covered by the prior mortgage of Shive, that neither plaintiffs nor the sheriff, before levying the writ, had paid or tendered to him the amount of the debt and interest thereby secured, or deposited said money with the county treasurer to his order, as provided by Comp. Laws 1909, secs. 4431, 4432, it was the duty.of the court sua sponte (18 En. Pl. & Pr. 431) to dissolve the attachment, order the property returned, and tax plaintiffs with the cost of the attachment and the cost of the interplea. This for the reason that, as Shive had a prior lien on the property, the plain letter of the statute was violated by the levy. Ellis v. Smith, 25 Okla. 234 , 105 Pac. 653; Moore v. Calvert et al., 8 Okla. 358 , 58 Pac. 627 .””
    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.