Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 CONN 406 - Pendleton v. Button

Pendleton v. Button’s Empirical Analysis

1820

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
August 1994
most recently cited

1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1994

1 district · 5 state decisions

20182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. ““The acknowledgment, to be recorded, must necessarily be in writing; and such is the invariable practice. To the record all men recur, for the purpose of ascertaining the title of lands. And to satisfy the inquiry a written acknowledgment is indispensably necessary.””
    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.