Wright v. Dickinson’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 1968 · most notably 42 Cal. App. 81 - Menefee v. Oxnam (1919), Cox v. Grose (1929)
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Brown v. Williams · Dickinson v. Wright · Davis v. Freeman · McNair v. Gilbert · Cicotte v. County of Wayne
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All there is to be ascertained can be ascertained by a jury; and that is, how much in equity and good conscience ought the defendants to repay of the purchase money they have received. All benefits which the plaintiff has received. will have to be deducted, and these can be ascertained and allowed for in a common-law proceeding.- The value of the timber cut and removed, and all other benefits which the plaintiff has derived from these contracts, can be adjusted in this action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Jones““Where, acting in good faith, property has been so changed or lost that it cannot be restored in specie, and where its value is capable of being ascertained, a party entitled to may rescind a contract, although he cannot place the other party in statu quo. That is the law of reason, and it is the law of justice. If the current of authority is the 'other way, based upon technicalities, I cannot yield my assent to the doctrine.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clifford v. Stewart““A bill of particulars, in practice, is considered in some respects as an amplification of the declaration, but it is considered sufficient if it fairly apprise the opposite party of the nature of the claim, so that there can be no surprise. Brown v. Williams, 4 Wend. 360 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sogge v. Schwartz
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.