Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Okla. 405 - Ziska v. Avey

Ziska v. Avey’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 1983
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1983 · most notably Stolfa v. Gaines (1929), McDuffie v. Geiser Mfg. Co. (1913)

4 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

20019121920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co. · Ely v. New Mexico & Arizona Railroad · Castro v. Barry · Burdette v. Corgan · Adler v. Sullivan

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

  1. ““Where a motion is made in which questions are raised which go to the jurisdiction of the court over the parties, and in which questions are also raised which cannot be raised by special appearance, but can only be heard upon a general appearance, the parties will be taken and held to have entered a general appearance, and in such case defects in the service of summons will be deemed and held to have been waived, even though such appearance be made after judgment and upon a motion to vacate and set aside such judgment.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * But, as the question of service is not an important one, as we view it, we will not decide this question; for, whatever the service was, it was cured by the appearance of the defendants after the judgment was rendered in the cause. By their motion to set aside the judgment, said motion being upon jurisdictional as well as nonjurisdictional grounds, they waived the question of jurisdiction, and made the defendants parties to the action, and this waiver binds them to that judgment as though they had originally appeared at the trial. * * *””
    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.