Cooper v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. (1977), Haney v. International Harvester Company (1972)
6 district · 55 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 Lunderberg v. Bierman · Chapman v. Davis · Ogren v. City of Duluth · Altermatt v. Arlan's Department Store, Inc. · George Benz Sons, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers Corp.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““in the legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions * ⅜ * already past. It may also be defined as one which changes or injuriously affects a present right by going behind it and giving efficacy to anterior circumstances to defeat it, which they had not when the right accrued, or which relates back to and gives to a previous transaction some different legal effect from that which it had under the laiu when it occurred. Another definition of a retrospective law is one intended to affect transactions ivhich occurred, or rights tuhich accrued, before it became operative, and which ascribes to them effects not inherent in their nature, in view of the law in force at the time of their occurrence.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Subdivision 1. Amendatory laws. When a section or part of a law is amended, the amendment shall be construed as merging into the original law, becoming a part thereof, and replacing the part amended, and the remainder of the original enactment and the amendment shall be read together and viewed as one act passed at one time; but the portions of the law which were not altered by the amendment shall be construed as effective from the time of their first enactment, and the new provisions shall be construed as effective only from the date when the amendment became effective. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haluptzok v. Peyton
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.