Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 P2D 514 - Underside v. Lathrop

Underside v. Lathrop’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Miller v. Miller (1998), Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co. (1990)

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

2901982199020002010decided

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 Allen v. McCurry · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison · Faulkner v. Cooper

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

  1. “Conjecture or speculation about possible adverse consequences that may flow from the decision at some point in the future will not suffice to support a person's 'aggrieved' status. One cannot appeal from a decision, however erroneous, which does not affect one's substantial rights.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A party may rely on two or more legal theories for relief ... in the alternative regardless of consistency ... and he shall not be required to elect the theory on which he will rely. Where a party relies on two or more theories ... he may state the facts which support his theories in one count ... or in separate counts ...” [Emphasis added]. For an explanation of the distinction between pleading separate causes of action and stating alternative theories of recovery in support of a single claim having its foundation in one occurrence or transaction see Fraser, One Form of Action: Pleading Alternative Facts, Theories and Remedies, 14 Okla.L.Rev. 125 [1961],”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[wle do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give advisory opinions about issues not yet in controversy.”
    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.