Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 OR 120 - Benson v. Keller

Benson v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
January 1937
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 1937

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

901900191019201930decided

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 Barney v. Latham · United States v. Union Pacific Railroad · Dresser v. Missouri and Iowa Railway Construction Company · South Portland Land Co. v. Munger · Alexander v. Alexander

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

  1. ““does not go to the merits of the cause, but relates more nearly to a question of convenience in conducting the suit; and, in large measure, it simply calls for an exercise of discretion in deciding whether both or all the causes of suit set forth in the bill shall be tried in a single suit, or be split up, and the parties be relegated to the bringing of two or more suits for the accomplishment of their purposes, or whether the defendant who is a necessary party in respect of one or more matters suggested by the complaint has a sufficient interest in or connection with the other matters involved to make him a proper party in respect to such other matters.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The rule with regard to multifariousness, whether arising from the misjoinder of causes of action or of defendants therein, is not an inflexible rule of practice or procedure, but is a rule founded in general convenience, which rests upon a consideration of what will best promote the administration of justice, without multiplying unnecessary litigation on the one hand, or drawing suitors into needless and unnecessary expenses on the other.””
    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.