Jefferies v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2006
23 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 Rhodes v. Terheyden · Anderson v. Bushong Pontiac Co. · DIPPEL v. Brunozzi · Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor · Miners Savings Bank v. Naylor
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A motion to strike the new matter as not pertinent is like a demurrer to the new matter, (citations omitted) ‘All that a demurrer does is to admit the facts for the sole purpose of testing the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings; what it says in effect is that even if the facts set forth be true they do not constitute a legal claim, or defense to the claim, as the case may be ....’” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trudnak v. Lilley““[I]t [is] incumbent upon [this] court to determine whether the facts averred in the new matter [are] legally relevant to plaintiffs’. cause or whether they could have any influence in leading, to the result.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trudnak v. Lilley
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.