Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 SW2D 617 - King v. Guy

King v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably Transport Manufacturing & Equipment Company, a Corporation, and Riss & Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Fruehauf Trailer Company, a Corporation, Fruehauf Trailer Company, a Corporation v. Transport Manufacturing & Equipment Company, a Corporation and Riss & Company, Inc., a Corporation (1961), Harris v. Union Electric Co. (1989)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions

110195719601970198019902000decided

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 Hazeltine Corp. v. Crosley Corp. · Gerber v. Schutte Investment Co. · Missouri District Telegraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Christian v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance · Conrad v. Diehl.

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

  1. ““ * * * [I]t has long been settled that, where a party, having the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, make his election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy, irrespective of whether such judgment has been for or against the electing party. ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like/ ””
    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.