Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 F.1d 222 - Ritter v. Ulman

Ritter v. Ulman’s Empirical Analysis

78 F. 222 · 1897

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2019

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

401897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Simmons v. Burlington C R N Ry Co Burlington C R N Ry Co · Ulman v. Ritter

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

  1. “In order to constitute the estoppel, or quasi estoppel, by acquiescence, the party, with full knowledge or notice of his rights, must freely do what amounts to a recognition of the transaction, or must act in a manner inconsistent with its repudiation, or must lie by for a considerable time, and knowingly permit the other party to deal with the subject-matter under the belief that the transaction has been recognized, or must abstain for a considerable time from impeaching it, so that the other party may reasonably suppose that it is recognized.”
    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.