Comley v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2018
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
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 62 W. Va. 167 - Toothman v. Courtney · 59 W. Va. 605 - Harvey Coal & Coke Co. v. Dillon · Chicago Attachment Co. v. Davis Sewing Machine Co. · Sanders v. Partridge · Johnson v. Reading
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That there can be no recovery from the assignee of the lessee until either privity of contract or privity of estate is established on the part of the assignee, is uniformly asserted by the authorities. In Railroad Co. v. McIntire, 44 W. Va. 210 , the assignee is said to be liable to the lessor because of his privity of estate. If there were an express covenant on the part of the assignee to pay the rent, there would be privity of contract.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“deed expressly gives, not only what is necessary, but what may be convenient as well,”
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.