Britton v. Gannon’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2016
2 federal appellate · 14 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 Williams v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Throckmorton · Stephens v. Thomasson · Calkin v. Wolcott · Levin v. Gladstein.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Extrinsic fraud is any fraudulent conduct of successful party which was practiced outside of actual adversary trial directly and affirmatively on defeated party whereby he was prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of cause, including false representations that defeated party is merely nominal party against whom no relief is sought, false promises of compromise, concealment of suit, kidnapping of witnesses, and the like, and in such cases court of equity has power to annul decree so obtained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sadberry v. Hope“Regardless of the reason assigned for the rule, the weight of authority is overwhelming that a defense of extrinsic fraud of the nature here sought to be pleaded and proved may be interposed in a suit on a foreign judgment, not for the purpose of reviewing, setting aside, modifying, or annulling the judgment of the sister state, but to prevent its enforcement in the collateral court... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““not required to recognize the judgment of a court of another state, territory, or country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where the court rendering the judgment was without jurisdiction or the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barrett v. Barrett
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.