Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 INDAPP 339 - Becovitz v. Saperstein

Becovitz v. Saperstein’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
6
states following
November 1984
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1984

8 state decisions

3019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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. ““The undertaking obligated the surety to. return the property involved ‘to the defendant’ if the return was adjudged; that is, to those who are defendants at the' time the judgment is rendered. This interpretation does not change or enlarge the liability of the surety, although it may change the beneficiary. The suit was instituted to determine the rights of the parties in the property • in question, and such right could only be settled by the adjudication. But one bond is contemplated for the return of property in one action, and that is for the "benefit of any party to the suit when the return is adjudged.””
    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.