Stuart Ex Rel. Stuart v. Dickinson’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1982 · most notably Leichty v. Kansas City Bridge Co. (1945), Drake v. Drake (1939)
1 federal appellate · 35 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 Kilbourn v. Thompson · Thompson v. Whitman · Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. · Cooper v. Newell · Lieber v. Lieber
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The first contention on behalf of the plaintiff in error is that, as whatever claim plaintiff acquired by reason of her injury was one not against the defendant company, hut against the receiver operating the road at the time under the orders of the court appointing him, and as it was within tho power of such court, on terminating tho receivership, to make and provide for settlement of all claims of partios against such receiver growing out of his operation of tho road, and as, in the present instance, by its order, tho circuit court had made such provision by directing that all claims against the receiver should he presented and prosecuted hy intervention prior to February 1, 18891, and that, if not so presented by that date, the same be barred, and shall not be a charge on the property of said company; and that, as the plaintiff did not so present or prosecute her claim, she was thereby precluded from maintaining an action against the company. “Undoubtedly, if this were a controversy between a party whose claim originated while a railroad was in the control of a receiver appointed during a foreclosure suit, and a purchaser at a judicial sale decreed under that proceeding, the plaintiff’s proposition would bo a sound one. If the property sequestrated had gone to sale, arid a fund had been thus realized for distribution, then, upon notice? “But the present ease is one in which no judicial sale was made, and no fund realized for distribution by final decree after notice to an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rules in question, however, constituted a written contract between the receiver and his employees; their construction, therefore, devolved exclusively upon the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wells v. Davis
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.