Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 AD2D 471 - Read v. Sacco

Read v. Sacco’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
5
states following
May 1993
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 1993

11 state decisions

120197519801990decided

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

  1. “In some of the counties in this State, the office of the District Attorney is not sufficiently staffed to prosecute all charges in the Justice’s Courts ... Under these circumstances, a victim of a [crime] has little choice: he must either represent himself in a criminal prosecution or retain an attorney for that purpose. There may, indeed, be lurking in his mind the object to acquire a judgment for money damages at a later date, but that alone should not defeat the prosecution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “should not be blindly applied ... on the basis of a rigid rule; each case must be examined to determine whether, under all the circumstances, the party said to be estopped was not unfairly or preju-dicially treated in the litigation in which the judgment sought to be enforced was rendered.”
    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.