Posvar v. Pearce’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1978
12 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 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Ott · School District No. 3 v. Western Tube Co. · Callahan v. Houck · Freeburgh v. Lamoureux · Boulter v. State
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The court further seems to have laid down the rule that whether or not a record shall be returned for amendment is in the discretion of this court, but that, where it appears that the omission therefrom of an essential fact is due to the laches of the party seeking relief as it undoubtedly is in this case the discretion should be used against him. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rayburne v. Queen
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.