Baker v. Stonebraker’s Empirical Analysis
1865
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1955 · most notably Wentz v. Price Candy Co. (1943), Spohn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (1885)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 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 Daggett v. Tallman · Ross v. Darby
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine is well established that, where an act of this kind operated to extinguish the contract or debt itself, the case no longer falls within the law of limitations on the remedy merely. In such case, when the debt or . judgment is sued on in another state, the lex loci contractus, and not the lex fori, is to govern. Sto. Confl. of Laws, § 582; Huber v. Steiner, 2 Bing. N. C. 202. These authorities admit a qualification, that ‘the parties are within the jurisdiction during all the period of the statute, so that it has actually operated on the case.’ This qualification is to be understood of cases where the statute itself expressly makes exceptions of the absence of the parties beyond the jurisdiction, in which case it would not operate on them. But where, as in this case, the statute makes no exception of the absent party, but is absolute in its terms, this qualification is inapplicable. 1- Smith’s Lead. Cas. 368.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.