Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 Cal. 60 - Cox v. McLaughlin

Cox v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

1881

Citation profile

158
cited by 158 later decisions
14
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 144 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 158 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably 6 Cal. 4th 644 - Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993), 3 Cal. 2d 740 - Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co. (1935)

7 federal appellate · 144 state decisions — followed in 14 states

29018811890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Van Rensselaer v. Jewett · Lush v. Druse · McMahon v. . the New York and Erie Railroad Company · Adams v. . the Fort Plain Bank · Cox v. McLaughlin

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

  1. ““But where, as in the case at bar, the amount of the services, their character and value, can only be established by evidence in court, or by an accord between the parties, and are not susceptible of ascertainment either by computation or by reference to market rates, or other known standard, we are of opinion plaintiff is not entitled to interest prior to verdict or judgment.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that the person liable does not know what sum he owes, and, therefore, can be in no default for not paying.”
    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.