Aultman v. Waddle’s Empirical Analysis
1888
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1929
2 federal appellate · 10 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 Wright v. Tebbitts · Duke v. Harper · Martin v. Clarkes. · Allard v. Lamirande · Moses v. Bagley & Sewell
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a great diversity of opinion as to what constitutes champerty. A few of the courts hold to the ancient doctrine of champerty with considerable strictness. Many of them have greatly relaxed the common-law rules, making (hem conform more closely to the present condition of society; while some have repudiated the doctrine entirely. In this state the doctrine has been recognized, and it has been hold that the defense of champerty may be maintained. A., T. & S. F. Rid. Oo. v. Johnson, 29 Kan. 218 . In that case the only consideration for the prosecution of the suit was a share of the judgment, to be recovered, and the attorneys were to commence and carry it to an end at their own cost and expenses. The mere agreement for a contingent fee does not fall within any of the rules of champerty, nor is it generally regarded to be unlawful for an attorney to carry on a suit for another for a percentage or share of the tiling to be recovered, unless lie assumes the visits of tlie litigation by relieving or indemnifying his client from all costs and expenses of tlie same. Sir William Blackstone says that champerty is ■‘a bargain with a plaintiff or defendant campum partiré to divide the land or other matter sued for between them if they prevail at law; whereupon the cliampertor is to carry on the party’s suit at his own expense. 4 Bl. Com. 135.’ The same view is taken by Mr. Ohitty, who makes the carrying on oi! the suit by the champertee at his own expense an essential element. O”
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.