Munger v. Elizabeth Doolan’s Empirical Analysis
1903
Citation profile
1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. (1993), Sassone v. Lepore (1993)
1 district · 28 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Cooper v. Reynolds · Earle v. McVeigh · Strong v. Strong
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It only remains to inquire whether this action by the officer created a valid attachment of the real estate described in the certificate of attachment. It is apparent that the officer proceeded as he would in attaching the real estate of a resident defendant. Our statutes (Rev. 1902, § 828) provide, and then provided (Rev. 1888, § 910), a special procedure for the attachment of estate within this state belonging to defendants not residing within the state. This statute is and was exclusive. Being in derogation of both common right and common law, it is one to be strictly interpreted and pursued. Its provisions and requirements may not be disregarded with impunity, nor waived or changed By courts. Cody v. Gay, 31 Conn. 395 ; Sanford v. Pond, 37 Conn. 588 ; Hubbell v. Kingman, 52 Conn. 17 ; Ahern v. Purnell, 62 Conn. 21 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Statute requires that a specified course be pursued, if a man’s property is to be taken from him without jurisdiction of his person. It recognises no equivalents and admits of no evasions. Nothing less than, or different from, that which the Statute prescribes can satisfy its requirements, even though the same substantial ends are accomplished.””
1 later decision 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.