McCallister v. Sappingfield’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1965
9 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 Woolf v. Chalker · Heiligmann v. Rose · State ex. rel. Curtis v. City of Topeka · Mullaly v. . People of the State of New York · Jemison v. Southwestern Railroad
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.
““The true rule being that the owner of a dog wrongfully killed is not circumscribed in his proof to its market value, for, if it has no market value, he may prove its special value to him by showing its qualities, characteristics and pedigree, and may offer the opinions of witnesses who are familiar with such qualities.” (Italics ours.) See Barber v. Motor Investment Co., 136 Or. 361 , 298 P. 216 ; Mattechek v. Pugh, 153 Or. 1 , 55 P. (2d) 730 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Leckington
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.