Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 A.2d 50 - Pollock v. Brown

Pollock v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1996

19 state decisions

130197819801990decided

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 United States v. McWilliams · Pouncey v. United States · Felice Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores, Also Known as Chilean Line, Felice Napolitano v. Compania Sud Americana De Vapores, Also Known as Chilean Line · Von Der Heydt v. Rogers · Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Hamilton

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

  1. “Both parties to these appeals quarrel with multiple aspects of the damages findings and conclusions. However, we do not reach those issues. Rather, having concluded that the entry of default was erroneous, we remand for a proper exercise of discretion in light of the standards discussed above. If on remand the trial court determines not to enter a default[,] of necessity, the case would be in the posture of being tried pursuant to the jury demand of record (unless waived). In that event the case will be deemed remanded. On the other hand, if the trial court concludes that default should again be entered, the record will be deemed remanded. Upon entry of an order to that effect, the Clerk of the trial court shall certify the record as supplemented to this court and, if necessary, this court can review the propriety of such an order. Should we affirm that order we then could reach the questions raised respecting the damages which were assessed in the so-called “ex parte” damages hearing. [ 395 A.2d at 53-54 .]”
    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.