Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 KAN 699 - Ehrsam v. Smith

Ehrsam v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
April 1968
most recently cited

2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1968

2 district · 7 state decisions

301900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Spencer v. McGonagle · In re Dill · Ogden v. Walters · Mills v. Ralston · Lutes v. Alpaugh

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““That there was error committed by the court in directing the execution and delivery of a deed, instead of a certificate of purchase subject to redemption, will be conceded, but the contention is that the sale and deed were made pursuant to the judgment of a court which had complete jurisdiction of all necessary parties and of the subject-matter, and that such judgment, however erroneous, is conclusive upon all interested parties so long as it remains in force. ... It is said that the right to decide involves the authority to decide wrong as well as right; that is, a judgment with jurisdiction is conclusive of the facts established and the rights adjudicated, although the court may have committed gross error in the-interpretation of the law or in the application of the same to the real facts in the case.””
    1 later decision 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.