Watts v. Rich’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1966
15 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 Banks v. Howard · 9 Ga. App. 371 - Joe v. State · Kemp v. Central of Georgia Railway Co. · 2 Ga. App. 79 - Cedartown Cotton & Export Co. v. Miles · Smith v. Bugg
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a plaintiff is required to set out his cause of action in a full, complete, and definite manner, in order that the defendant may, without difficulty, understand the nature of the plaintiff's charge or demand, and make preparation to meet it (Civil Code § 5538), this requirement is to be liberally construed ( Kemp v. Central &c. R. Co., 122 Ga. 559 , 50 SE 465 ), and a plaintiff is not required to allege impossible particulars or unnecessary details ( Bittick v. Georgia &c. R. Co., 136 Ga. 138 , 70 SE 106 ), nor is a plaintiff required to set forth in his petition the evidence relied on to make out his cause of action, it being sufficient if he alleges enough to inform the opposite party of the grounds of his action, and to enable the jury to find an intelligible and complete verdict, and enable the court to declare distinctly the law of the case. Cedartown Cotton &c. Co. v. Miles, 2 Ga. App. 79 ( 58 SE 289 ); Wrightsville &c. R. Co. v. Vaughn, 9 Ga. App. 371 (2), 377 ( 71 SE 691 ).”
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.