Wilson v. Towers’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.2d 199 · 1932
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2018
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States · Cold Blast Transp. Co. v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co. · Williams v. . Barkley · A. Santaella & Co. v. Otto F. Lange Co. · American Cotton Oil Co. v. Kirk
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the recitals are clear and the operative part is ambiguous, the recitals govern the construction. If the recitals are ambiguous, and the operative part is clear, the operative part must prevail. If both the recitals and the operative part are clear, but they are inconsistent with each other, the operative part is to be preferred.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.