Winget v. Rockwood’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.2d 326 · 1934
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. (1940)
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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 De Meerleer v. Michigan · Trice v. Comstock · Baker v. Schofield · William Wheeler v. Hugh Smith · Ralston v. Turpin
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A suit should not ordinarily be disposed of on such a motion [a motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity] unless it clearly appears from the allegations of the bill that it must ultimately, upon -final hearing, be dismissed. To warrant such dismissal, it should appear from the allegations that a cause of action does not exist, rather than that a cause of action has been defectively stated. * * * “That rule of procedure should be followed which will be most likely to result in justice between the parties, and, generally speaking, that result is more likely to be attained by leaving the merits of the cause to be disposed of after answer and the submission of proof, than by attempting to deal with the merits on motion to dismiss the bill.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * There is no legal standard of resistance with which the victim must comply at the peril of being remediless for a wrong done, and no general rule as to the sufficiency of facts to produce duress. * * * In other words, duress is not to be tested by the character of the threats, but rather by the effect produced thereby on the mind of the victim. The means used, the age, sex, state of health and mental characteristics of the victims are all evi-dentiary, but the ultimate fact in issue is whether such person was bereft of. the free exercise of his willpower. * * *” 10”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Circumstances also of extreme necessity and distress of the parties, although not accompanied by any direct restraint or duress, may in like manner so entirely overcome his free agency as to justify the court in setting aside a contract made by him on account of some oppression or fraudulent advantage or imposition attendant upon it.’ ””
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.