Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 N.M. 391 - Sellman v. Haddock

Sellman v. Haddock’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
2
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 61 Wis. 2d 111 - Heifetz v. Johnson (1973), Royal Indemnity Co. v. Southern California Petroleum Corp. (1960)

4 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

3401957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Beals ex rel. Walker v. Ares · Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. Hurley · American Trust & Savings Bank v. Scobee · Hugh K. Gale Post No. 2182 Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Norris · Keirsey v. Hirsch

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

  1. ““ * * *. The reason for the rule is that where a party goes into a court of equity, asking the court to give him relief, he must have before the court all parties whose rights may be affected by the relief sought, because the court will not extend its arm to give him relief, at his solicitation, unless the parties to be 'affected are before the court and have an opportunity to resist the application, the granting of which will be detrimental to them. When a party goes to the court seeking relief, he must bring the parties to be affected by the decree before the court, otherwise the court will not act.””
    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.