Harms v. Simkin’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Christine M. Grunewald, Individually and as of the Will of Henry W. Grunewald, Deceased v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Missouri Corporation (1964), State v. Smith (1967)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 City of St. Louis v. Butler Co. · Hendershot v. Minich · Savings Finance Corporation v. Blair · Magerstadt v. La Forge · Brown v. Stroeter
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant who employs a series of lawyers without making satisfactory financial arrangements for the payment of their fees, as a result of which he is never prepared for trial, cannot depend upon the courts regularly to postpone his case on the eve of the time set for trial on the ground that his counsel has withdrawn. He has only himself to blame if he is forced to go to trial without counsel. Inevitably a day of reckoning comes. By inattention to his case a party defendant may not be permitted to impede the orderly administration of justice and then complain that the court has acted arbitrarily in holding him to the consequences of his own neglect. If the rule were otherwise, a defendant could indefinitely avoid trial, and there would be no end to the matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowman v. Prinster
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.