State Ex Rel. Cain v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2009
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 State Ex Rel. Gentry v. Becker · Tracy v. Martin Ex Rel. Gunn · City of St. Louis v. Meintz · Rook v. John F. Oliver Trucking Company · Willis v. American National Life Insurance Co.
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.
“"The right to recover attorneys' fees from one's opponent in litigation as a part of the costs thereof ... [did] not exist at common law.... [W]hether attorneys' fees are recoverable depends upon either express statutory authority or agreement of the parties.... [T]he term `costs' as used in a statute does not include attorneys' fees, with certain exceptions.... For a list of the exceptions to this rule see Johnson v. United Rys. Co., 247 Mo. 326 , 152 S.W. 362, 366 (banc 1912)." None of the Johnson exceptions applies here. In Cain the court dealt with § 211.281 which reads: "The costs of the proceedings in any case in the juvenile court may, in the discretion of the court be adjudged against the parents of the child involved or the informing witness as provided in section 211.081, as the case may be, and collected as provided by law. All costs not so collected shall be paid by the county."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allstun v. C.J.G.H. · In Re Am“The costs of the proceedings in any case in the juvenile court may, in the discretion of the court be adjudged' against the parents of the child involved or the informing witness as provided in Section 211.081 [i.e., ‘any person [who] informs the court in person and in writing that a child appears to be within the [juvenile court’s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction]’] as the case may be, and collected as provided by law. All costs not so collected shall be paid by the county-”
2 later decisions 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.