Geiser Threshing Machine Co. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1874
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1952
7 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.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because, whether it was commenced or not, the acceptance by the plaintiffs of full payment of the amount due on the note extinguished their right to prosecute it. It may be that the plaintiffs might have refused the payment, and prosecuted the suit to judgment for damages and costs. But they could not receive the damages and reserve the right to prosecute the suit for costs. Canfield v. School District, 19 Conn. 529 ; Ayer v. Ashmead, 31 Conn. 447 [ 83 Am. Dec. 154 ]; Buell v. Flower, 39 Conn. 462 [ 12 Am. Rep. 414 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Obert v. Zahn
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.