Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 F.1d 384 - Ewing v. Burnham

Ewing v. Burnham’s Empirical Analysis

74 F. 384 · 1896

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
February 1920
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · Nudd v. Burrows · Bowden v. Johnson · Amy v. City of Watertown · Steam Stone Cutter Co. v. Jones

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

  1. ““See. 918. Tbe several ® * District Courts may, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States, or with any rule prescribed by the Supreme Court under the preceding section, make rules and orders directing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of pleadings, the taking of rules, the entering and making up of judgments by default, and other matters in vacation, and otherwise regulate their own practice as may be necessary or convenient for the advancement of justice and the. prevention of delays in proceedings.””
    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.