Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 ALA 508 - Seibs v. Engelhardt

Seibs v. Engelhardt’s Empirical Analysis

1885

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
7
states following
June 1955
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1955

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

5018851890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Henry Miller's Heirs & Devisees v. M'Intyre · King v. Avery · Mohr v. Lemle · Harris v. Pullman · Murray v. Rapley

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

  1. ““The claim had been made out and filed in the probate office as against Mr. Seibs, and no reference was made either in the claim, or in the complaint, to any ownership Mrs. Seibs might have in the property. In June, 1885, the complaint was amended, by inserting the name of Mrs. A. B. H. Seibs, wife of J. G. Seibs, as a party defendant, and averring that the property was hers, and that the liability and lien rested on her. To this amended complaint Mrs. Seibs pleaded the statute of limitations of 90 days, as a bar to the action, so far as it proceeded against her property. No demurrer was interposed to this plea, and we-must treat it as if issue of fact was joined upon it. This, however, was immaterial; for, if it had been demurred to, the demurrer should have been overruled. The amendment introduced a new party, and as to her it was the commencement of the action. The statute of limitations was a complete bar, so far as she was concerned.” Seibs v. Englehardt, 78 Ala. 508 .”
    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.