Bowles v. Madl’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1983
3 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 Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co. · 53 F. Supp. 787 - Bowles v. Chew · Speten v. Bowles · 55 F. Supp. 9 - Bowles v. Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. · Brown v. Glick Bros. Lumber 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In ordinary parlance to use an article is to utilize or employ it for the purposes for which it was intended. For instance, to use a plow is to cultivate the ground with the plow. To use a wagon is to haul with the wagon or drive it for the purposes for which a wagon is ordinarily used. To use a refrigerator is to place it in one’s home to preserve food and kindred articles.””
2 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.