Perin v. Peuler’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably McDougall v. Schanz (1999), McHaffie Ex Rel. McHaffie v. Bunch (1995)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he function of enacting and amending judicial rules or practice and procedure has been committed exclusively to this Court ...; a function with which the legislature may not meddle or interfere save as the Court may acquiesce and adopt for retention at judicial will.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The judicial function constitutionally empowers the courts to make their own rules of procedure, including rules of evidence (subject only to specific constitutional limitations). Virtually all of the original rules of evidence were invented by the courts.... In recent times, the just prerogative of the courts to make their own rules of procedure has been vindicated in professional opinion; and a healthy movement to relegate generally procedure to the courts has long been under way. That this prerogative of the courts includes the power to formulate and to alter the rules of evidence ought not to be doubted." [ Id. at 541-542 , 130 N.W.2d 4 (emphasis in original; citation omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDougall v. Schanz““It could not be sensibly contended, for instance, that the entrusted driver, thus known to be unfit or incompetent, had started any chain of causation back to the entrustor if such entrusted driver, in the operation of the entrusted car, had himself committed no act or omission constituting actionable negligence.””
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.