Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 DEL 343 - Rhoads v. Mitchell

Rhoads v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2003

2 district · 6 state decisions

401946195019601970198019902000decided

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 Romberger v. Romberger · Haverford Township School District v. Herzog · Galli's Estate · Miles v. Layton · Pacific Lumber Co. v. Rodd

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

  1. “A warrant of attorney to confess judgment may furnish substantial provision for collateral security for the payment of a debt, or the performance of an obligation due at the time of the execution of the warrant, or to become due in the future. Where the warrant to confess judgment is without limit of time there is no necessity to await the maturity of the obligation before entry of judgment. Id. at 179 . 1”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the cited case [General Contractors Purchase Corp., supra ] it was shown that the power and practice of an attorney of the Court to appear and confess judgment pursuant to a valid warrant of attorney therefor does not rest upon a statute, but upon ancient practice or custom and the common law.”
    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.