Miles v. Layton’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably In Re Estate of West (1987), Kam Chin Chun Ming v. Kam Hee Ho (1962)
4 district · 28 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 Simon v. Southern Railway Co. · Stone v. State of South Carolina · Barrow v. Hunton · Mississippi Mills v. Cohn · King v. Brooks
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In New Jersey allegations of fraud in the obtaining of the obligation are, or were, determinable in an issue framed on an application to open a judgment (Barrow v. Bispham, 11 N. J. Law 110), while in Delaware the Law Courts have preferred that questions of fraud should be determined in the more comprehensive jurisdiction of a court of equity (State, Use of Duncan, v. Richardson, 1 Marv. 372 , 41 A. 75 ; Townsend v. Townsend, 5 Harr. 20 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““... the opening of the judgment does not destroy the institution of the suit, and in a case where the judgment is held cautionary it does not affect the lien of the judgment or of execution upon it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judgments, heretofore existent, are not destroyed but merely opened and held cautionary awaiting the disposition of the issue.”
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.