Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 NEB 462 - Godfrey v. Cunningham

Godfrey v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2025

6 state decisions

101906191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Keens v. Robertson · Huffman v. Rhodes · McGrew v. State Bank

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

  1. “In Huffman v. Rhodes, 72 Neb. 57 [ 100 N.W. 159 (1906)], it was held that an interlocutory order may be vacated at a subsequent term by the same court, without compliance with the provisions of section 602 of the code [Ann. Stat. §§ 1612 et seq. (1903)]. No special procedure therefor is required on the part of the trial court in dealing with such orders, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown the”
    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.