Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 NY 216 - Clark v. . Rowling

Clark v. . Rowling’s Empirical Analysis

1850

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
12
states following
May 1997
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 1997 · most notably Gutta Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Mayor (1888), Letcher County v. De Foe (1945)

1 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 12 states

120185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Dresser v. Brooks · Andrews v. Smith

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

  1. “It is true, that the notes as evidence of an indebtedness were merged in the judgment; which being greater security, operated to extinguish the lesser; but does it therefore follow, that the judgment to all intents became a new debt, and that the merger or extinguishment of the notes was so complete, as that for the purpose of protecting the defendants in an equity connected with their original indebtedness, we may not look behind the judgment and see upon what it was founded? A judgment, instead of being regarded strictly as a new debt, is sometimes held to be merely the old debt in a new form, so as to prevent a technical merger from working injustice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““And the court held that, although the original undertaking of the defendant was so merged in the judgment that no suit could be maintained upon it, yet that it was proper to inquire into the time and circumstances, of the contract upon which the first judgment was founded, for the purpose of taking the case out of the operation of the defendant’s discharge.””
    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.