Robinson v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. ““And now, turning our attention to the amended affidavit, we would say that it is also undoubtedly defective in not relating back to the time of filing the original affidavit. (Drake, Attachm. (3d ed.), § 113 ; Crouch v. Crouch, 9 Iowa, 269, 271 ; Wadsworth v. Cheeney, 10 id. 257, 259.) It cures no defect of the original affidavit, except that it states more clearly the nature of the plaintiff’s claims. Its material averments are all in the present tense. It affirms that each of the plaintiff’s claims is just, but it does not show that said claims were just at the time the original affidavit was filed.” (See, also, State v. Chiles, post, 67 Pac. 884 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rothweiler v. Mason · Westbrook v. Nelson

2. ““It is even probable that the defect is not so fatal, that this court would hold the affidavit insufficient if the district court had held it sufficient. . . . Whenever there seems to be a studied effort to evade swearing to the bold and naked proposition that the claim is just . . . there seems to be an eminent propriety in the court requiring that the language of the statute be strictly complied with. ... Of course, cases might arise, and probably do arise, in which the court would not be justified in being so scrupulously exact.” (pp. 300, 302.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rothweiler v. Mason