Starrett v. Shepard’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2024
19 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. Research Automation Corp. · Cities Service Oil Co. v. Viering · United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Spin-Line Co. · Da Shores v. Dl Lindsey · Henderson v. Coleman
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]leadings filed in actions taken by a non-lawyer corporate officer in a legal action are subject to be stricken or held to be a nullity; and there may be cases in which the entry of a default judgment against a corporation may be justified on the ground that the corporation was improperly represented in the action by a non-lawyer corporate officer, but such is not justified in a case such as this, wherein the representation was very limited.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““A material alteration of an instrument made after its execution by a party offering it into evidence, which alteration was not consented to by the other party, nullifies the instrument as a legal obligation. An alteration is material if it: “ ‘ * * * destroys the identity of the instrument or of the contract evidenced thereby, or which so changes its terms as to give it a different legal effect from that which it originally had, and thus works some change in the rights, obligations, interest, or relations of the parties. * * * ’ 4 Am. Jur.2d Alteration of Instruments § 5, pp. 6-7 (1962).” Starrett v. Shepard, Wyo., 606 P.2d 1247, 1252-53 (1980) (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“« * * * ^ action to the facts specially found, the trial court is assumed to have found those consistent facts which support the judgment, and the trial court’s findings are entitled to benefit of all reasonable inferences in support thereof. Hanna State & Savings Bank v. Matson, 53 Wyo. 1 , 77 P.2d 621 (1938); Seibel v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409 , 40 P. 756 (1895).” Starrett v. Shepard, Wyo., 606 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1980).”
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.