Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 MD 49 - Dirickson v. Showell

Dirickson v. Showell’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
December 1998
most recently cited

2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1998

2 district · 12 state decisions

3018941900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Lee v. Tinges

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. “If the contract itself fixes the amount due, or affords by its terms a certain measure for ascertaining that amount, an attachment will lie if the necessary jurisdictional facts appear; and the test is whether the contract furnishes a standard by which the amount of the indebtedness or damages may be determined with sufficient certainty to permit the plaintiff to verify his claim by affidavit.”
    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.