Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 OR 41 - Williams v. Burdick

Williams v. Burdick’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
May 1933
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1933

8 state decisions

30191219201930decided

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 William Tayloe v. The Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore · Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co. · Moody v. Richards · Taffe v. Smyth · Frush v. City of East Portland

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

  1. ““In an action tried by a court without a jury, the receipt of incompetent evidence, properly excepted to, is not prejudicial, unless injury has necessarily resulted.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““the apparent mutual assent of the parties, which is essential to the formation of a valid agreement, is to be gathered from the language that they have employed. ’ ’”
    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.