Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 NY 1 - Chester v. . Dickerson

Chester v. . Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

1873

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Strang v. Bradner (1885), King v. . Barnes (1888)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 24 states

1901873188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. ““Most of the conflict in the authorities has arisen in controversies about the title to real estate after the dissolution ■ of the partnership or the death of one of the partners. But suppose two persons, by parol agreement, enter into' a partnership tO' speculate in lands, how do they come in conflict with the statute of frauds? No estate or interest in land has been granted, assigned, or declared. When the agreement is made no- lands are owned by the firm, and neither party attempts to convey or assign any to the other. The contract is a valid one, and in pursuance of this agreement they go on and buy, improve and sell lands. While- they are doing this, do they not act as partners and bear a partnership relation to each other? Within the meaning of the statute in such case neither conveys nor assigns any land to -the other, and hence there is no conflict with the statute. The statute is not so broad as to- prevent proof by parol of an interest in lands; it is simply aimed at the creation or conveyance of an estate in lands without a writing.””
    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.