Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 COLO 146 - Pipe v. Smith

Pipe v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1879

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2012

4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

50187918801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Johnson · Keeton's Heirs v. Keeton's Administrator · Sublette v. Tinney · Wilmerding v. Russ · Young v. Cook

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

  1. “might with ordinary care and attention have seasonably detected [the fraud].”
    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.