Tunheim v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2010
2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Ex parte Poresky · Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co. · Phillips v. United States · SWARB Et Al. v. LENNOX Et Al.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statement in writing shall be made, signed by the defendant and verified by his oath, to the following effect: 1. It shall authorize the entry of judgment for a specified sum. 2. If it be money due, or to become due, it shall state concisely the facts out of which it arose, and shall show that the sum confessed therefor is justly due, or to become due.”
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.