Paulos v. Janetakos’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 1997
20 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 Douglass v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n · Kurtz v. Farrington · Paulos v. Janetakos · People Ex Rel. Reilly v. Johnson · In Re Assessment of First National Bank of Chickasha
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Before considering in detail the various findings obj ected to, we must first inquire: Deleting entirely •such .findings of fact as appellant claims are objectionable, do there remain sufficient findings upon which to sustain the judgment? * * * “ * * * See 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1787, where under a head note as follows: ‘The mere making of unnecessary and superfluous findings or the presence of error in findings on immaterial, irrelevant, or purely collateral issues is harmless and non-reversible error if the judgment is otherwise sufficiently supported’, it is said: “ ‘Reversible error cannot be found in the mere fact that the court makes superfluous and unnecessary findings. “ ‘A judgment supported by proper findings is not vitiated by findings on immaterial points or issues, for example, on issues outside the pleadings or unsupported by evidence, or where, _ whatever the finding on the issue, it affords appellant no cause of action or ground of defense but is without legal consequence; such findings may be treated as surplusage and. disregarded, ( not only in that action but also in subsequent litigation. “ ‘However, although part of the findings are outside the issues, if, after, eliminating these findings, the remaining ones are not sufficient to support the judgment, it will be reversed.’ 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 1787. * * *. “Appellant was not prejudiced by -such findings, as far as the final decision-in this case is concerned, and cannot be prejud”
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.