Burchfield v. Ping’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1985
1 federal appellate · 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 McLean v. Thurman · Kentucky Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Chenault & Orear · Swift Coal & Timber Co. v. Cornett · French v. Childers · D. B. Frampton & Co. v. Saulsberry
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At the outset, it is suggested that this case is not subject to review because the record reflects that the monetary value of the timber was not over $316, and no motion for an appeal was made as provided by KRS 21.080. But it must be remembered that an injunction upon final judgment was also sought to prevent an alleged continuing wrong, which in this instance is hardly translatable into a monetary valuation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stephenson v. Adams
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.