Godkin v. Cohn’s Empirical Analysis
80 F. 458 · 1897
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1915
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Galliher v. Cadwell · Railroad Company v. National Bank · Cornelius v. Kessel · Graham v. Railroad Co. · Halstead v. Grinnan
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The length of time during which the party neglects the assertion of his rights, which must pass) in order to show laches, varies with the peculiar circumstances of each case, and is not, like the matter of limitations,' subject to an arbitrary rule. It is an equitable defence, controlled by equitable considerations, and the lapse of time must be so great, and the relations of the defendant to the rights such, that it would be inequitable to permit the plaintiff to now assert them. There must, of course, have been knowledge on the part of the plaintiff of the existence of the rights, for thére can be no laches in failing to assert rights of which a party is wholly ignorant, and whose existence he had no reason to apprehend.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mathieson v. Craven
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.