Tilton v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1981
6 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 Pope v. Beauchamp · Wilson v. Denton · A. C. Petri & Bro. v. Lincoln National Bank · Kerlicks v. Meyer · Hemman v. Hemman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the matter of allowing a jury upon a late demand is discretionary with the trial judge, his action relative thereto is reversible error only when an abuse of discretion is shown. The question above stated must therefore be answered in the affirmative. A reversible error is not disclosed by merely showing that the trial court refused a late request for a jury, and in so doing followed a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court for regulation of trials in the district courts. As we understand the authorities, it is necessary that the bill further show that the granting of the late request would not result in an interference with the orderly handling of the court’s docket, delay the trial of the case, or operate to the injury of the opposite party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gallagher v. Joyce
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.