Burns v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis
1907
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1950
14 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 Eyerts v. Agnes · Moss v. Shear · Merriam v. Victory Mining Co. · Camarillo v. Fenlon · Henry v. Carson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘No action shall abate * * by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action * * continue.’ ” “This section was construed in Elliott v. Teal, 5 Sawy. 188 (Fed. Cas. No. 4389), decided in 1878, in which it was held that, where pendente lite plaintiff conveyed all his interest in the subject of the litigation to another, the action should not abate, but be continued in the name of the original plaintiff. The same ruling was made in French v. Edwards, Fed. Cas. No. 5,097, under the California statute, and in 1898, Judge Gilbert, in Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Hughes (C. C.), 89 Fed. 182 , again construes this section to the same effect. In Merriam v. Victory Min. Co., 37 Or. 321, 329 ( 60 Pac. 997 ), it is suggested by Mr. Justice Bean that it is doubtful whether a transfer by plaintiff made pendente lite of his interest in the subject of the suit necessitates the substitution of the transferee—citing Elliott v. Teal . And in Culver v. Randle, 45 Or. 491, 494 ( 78 Pac. 394 ), Mr. Chief Justice Moore cites Elliott v. Teal with approval, where the question arose as to such substitution after judgment for the purpose of appeal. See, also, Moss v. Shear, 30 Cal. 467, 475 ; Camarillo v. Fenlon, 49 Cal. 202 . We consider, however, that the language of the statute (Section 38) is clear and decisive upon this question, and that the facts stated constitute no defense, and that the demurrer was properly sustained thereto;” Auto Dispatch Co. v. Cauldwell, 67 Or. 301 ( 135 Pac. 8”
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.