Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 Nev. 330 - Foster v. Lewis

Foster v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Price v. Dunn (1990), Rae v. All American Life & Casualty Co. (1979)

2 district · 22 state decisions

10019621970198019902000decided

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 Nelson v. Sierra Construction Corp. · Griffin v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. · Perry v. District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Esmeralda · Dawson v. Meier · State Ex Rel. Crummer v. Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

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

  1. “(1) Service by Publication. (i) General. When the person on whom service is to be made resides out of the state, or has departed from the state, or cannot, after due diligence, be found within the state . . . and the fact shall appear, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, and it shall appear ... by affidavit. . . that a cause of action exists against the defendant . . ., such court or judge may grant an order that the service be made by the publication of summons. Provided, when said affidavit is based on the fact that the party on whom service is to be made resides out of the state, and the present address of the party is unknown, it shall be a sufficient showing of such fact if the affiant shall state generally in such affidavit that at a previous time such person resided out of this state in a certain place (naming the place and stating the latest date known to affiant when such party so resided there); that such place is the last place in which such party resided to the knowledge of affiant; that such party no longer resides at such place; that affiant does not know the present place of residence of such party or where such party can be found; and that affiant does not know and has never been informed and has no reason to believe that such party now resides in this state; and, in such case, it shall be presumed that such party still resides and remains out of the state, and such affidavit shall be deemed to be a sufficient showing of due dilige”
    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.