Cain v. Dickenson’s Empirical Analysis
1880
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1922
1 federal appellate · 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 Stewart v. Emerson · Powers v. Hale · Northumberland v. Cobleigh · Morrill v. Hovey · Hobbs v. Hobbs
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The part payment of the note did not condone the fraud; it only mitigated the damages to the extent of the payment. But if part payment might under any circumstances have that effect, it could not here, for the plaintiff at the time stated that he did not waive his right to damages for the fraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. Egger
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.