Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 NY 547 - Oakley v. . Aspinwall

Oakley v. . Aspinwall’s Empirical Analysis

1850

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
32
states following
December 2000
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000 · most notably Frank v. Mangum (1915), Aetna Life Insurance v. Lavoie (1986)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 32 states

2801850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

  1. ““It is the design of the law to maintain the purity and impartiality of the courts and to ensure for their decisions the respect and confidence of the community. Their judgments become precedents which control the determination of subsequent cases; and it is important, in that respect, that their decisions should be free from all bias. After securing wisdom and impartiality in their judgments, it is of great importance that the courts should be free from reproach or the suspicion of unfairness. The party may be interested only that his particular suit should be justly determined; but the state, the community is concerned not only for that, but that the judiciary shall enjoy an elevated rank in the estimation of mankind.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “■ Is of. great importance that the court should be free from reproach or the suspicion of unfairness. A party may be interested only that the particular suit should be justly determined; but the state — the community — is concerned not only for that, but that the judiciary shall enjoy an elevated rank in the estimation of mankind. Although the party consent, he ■will invariably murmur if he do not gain his cause, and the very man who induced the judge to act when he should have forborne will be the first to arraign his decision as biased and unjust.””
    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.