Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 F.2d 171 - Methudy v. Roy

Methudy v. Roy’s Empirical Analysis

65 F.2d 171 · 1933

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
December 1981
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1981

40193319401950196019701980decided

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 Herman v. Fullman · Chapman v. Hammett · Schneider v. Briggs

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. ““In case of material error arising through inadvertence or mistake, the statement may be corrected on motion (see rule 153), upon a satisfactory showing that the correction is essential to the ends of justice. The motion to correct the statement must be made, if possible, before the taking of any testimony, and as soon as practicable after the discovery of the error.””
    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.