Scott v. Waggoner’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably Terry Trading Corp. v. Barsky (1930), Parmelee v. Chicago Eye Shield Co. (1946)
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 31 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 Craft Refrigerating MacHine Co. v. Quinnipiac Brewing Co. · Story & Isham Commercial Co. v. Story · Woodruff v. Garner · Gutzman v. Clancy · Reynolds v. Fitzpatrick
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 6540, Revised Codes, provides, among other things, that an answer may contain a statement of any new matter constituting a counterclaim, but such counterclaim ‘must tend, in some way, to diminish or defeat the plaintiff’s recovery, and must be one of the following causes of action against the plaintiff, or, in a proper case, against the person whom he represents, and in favor of the defendant, or of one or more defendants, between whom and the plaintiff a separate judgment may be had in the action: (1) A cause of action, arising out of the contract or transaction, set forth in the complaint, as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or connected with the subject of the action; (2) in an action on contract, any other cause of action on contract, existing- at the commencement of the action.’ (Sec. 6541.) That these provisions are designed to enable parties litigant to adjust their differences in one action, so far as that can logically be done, and thereby to prevent multiplicity of suits, is made plain by the further provision that if the defendant omit to set up a counterclaim in the classes mentioned in subdivision 1 of section 6541, neither he nor Ms assignee can afterward maintain an action against the plaintiff thereon. (Sec. 6547.) For statutes so highly remedial, a broad and liberal construction is required, in order that the purposes designed by them shall be'most completely served. “Thus premising, we take up the declaration of respondent that ‘the counterc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Swanson
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.