Estes v. Worthington’s Empirical Analysis
30 F. 465 · 1887
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1939
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Mitchell v. Harmony · Wright v. J. & S. Wilcox · Phelps v. . Wait · Richardson v. Kimball · Steiger v. Heidelberger
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In torts of misfeasance, like the violation of a trade-mark, agents and servants are personally liable to the injured party. Bell v. Josselyn, 3 Gray, 309 , 63 Am. Dec. 741 ; Richardson v. Kimball, 28 Me. 463 ; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115 , 14 L. Ed. 75 ; Phelps v. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78 . All persons procuring or assisting in the commission of a trespass are principals in the transaction, and both the master who commands, and the servant who does, the act of trespass may be made responsible as principals, and may be sued jointly or severally for damages, as the injured party may elect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Saxlehner v. Eisner
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.