Adams v. Cosby’s Empirical Analysis
1874
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 1940 · most notably Board of Commissioners v. Gibson (1902), Wood v. City of Fort Wayne (1886)
25 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 Kerstetter v. Raymond · Lomax v. Bailey · McKinney v. Springer · Wolcott v. Yeager · Boyle v. Guysinger
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The instructions given to the jury by the court, on its own motion, were as follows: “ ‘1. In this case, if you believe from the evidence that the contract for the building of the house named was entered into between Mr. Cosby, the plaintiff, and Mr. Adams, the defendant, and that the same was completed according to the contract, and the certificate of the architect mentioned was obtained, waived, or unreasonably refused, your verdict will be made up by allowing the price of the house, and the value of the extra work done at the defendant’s 'request, if any was done, added together, deducting therefrom payments made by Adams, and offsets proved, added to the payments, and if the balance is in favor of the plaintiff, you will find in his favor for such balance, but if the balance is in favor of the defendant, you will find for him the amount of such balance. “ ‘2. But if you believe the plaintiff entered upon the erection of said house mentioned in the previous instruction, under the contract mentioned therein, and failed to complete it according to the contract, but the defendant nevertheless took possession of the house as left by the plaintiff, and occupied, and still occupies it, with his family, enjoying, the benefits of the work done and materials furnished by the plaintiff, thus accepting them, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the contract price of the house, less the cost of completing the house according to the contract, and any special damages the defendant”
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.