Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 F.2d 513 - Woodward v. Armstrong

Woodward v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis

73 F.2d 513 · 1934

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 1965
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Toponce · Anglo-Colombian Development Co. v. Stapleton

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is settled law that where there is a mutual open account between two parties it is implied that they have mutually consented that the items occurring from time to time in favor of the respective parties shall operate as mutual set-offs, and that the shifting balance, when either or both shall call for it, shall be the debt, and for this reason the statute of limitations does not run during such a state of mutual dealings, but only from the date of the last item; and if the last item is within the statutory period of limitations, it draws after it the items beyond that time.”
    3 later decisions 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.