Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 F.2d 385 - Blair v. Mueller

Blair v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis

299 F.2d 385 · 1962

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1989

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

20196219701980decided

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 Flash v. Conn · Schwab v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. · Harrison v. Remington Paper Co. · Shellington v. . Howland · Talbott v. Nibert

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

  1. ““. . . We are persuaded that the legislative purpose was to impose liability upon officers and directors alike for a violation of the statute in respect to the incurring of debts prior to the filing of the affidavit relating to the paid-in capital. And we think that the statute is limited in scope and effect in a case of this kind to debts incurred while the person against whom liability is asserted was an officer or director. We do not believe that the statute was intended to bring within the range of its sanction in the nature of personal liability for delinquencies in connection with debts incurred before the person against whom liability is asserted became an officer or director or after he ceased to occupy such official position. . . .” (p.388.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.