Quickick, Inc. v. Quickick International’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2016
5 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
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 Pace Corporation v. Jackson · Atomic Fuel Extraction Corporation v. Slick's Estate · Hanson v. Bradley · Staacke v. Routledge · Farrier v. Hopkins
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States. The court may inform itself of such laws in any manner as it may deem proper, and the court may call upon counsel to aid it in obtaining such information. The determination of such laws shall be made by the court, and not by the jury, and shall be reviewable. A party may also present to the trial court any admissible evidence of such laws, but, to enable a party to offer evidence of the law in another jurisdiction or to ask that judicial notice be taken thereof, reasonable notice shall be given to the adverse parties either in the pleadings or otherwise. The law of a jurisdiction other than those referred to in the first paragraph of this article shall be an issue for the court, but shall not be subject to the foregoing provisions concerning judicial notice."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he filing of an answer subjects the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Court unless he has first insisted on a decision on his exception to the jurisdiction over his person. It would be completely inconsistent to permit a defendant to proceed to trial on the merits in a court which he claims to have no jurisdiction over his person, and permit him to reserve any rights under his exception which he has not insisted be decided prior to trial.”
2 later decisions 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.