Wire v. Slocum’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2004
4 state decisions
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 Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. Fitch · Strickler v. Gitchel · Oland v. Malson · Bilby v. Jones · Dodd-Lear Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Gyr
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The petition in an action for the conversion of personal property must allege facts showing: First, that the plaintiff has a; general or special property in the chattels alleged to have been converted ¡ second, the right of possession thereof at the time of the conversion; and third, that the defendant has converted the same to his own use. “ ‘Conversion is any ¡distinct act of dominion wrongfully extended over another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein,.’ Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. Fitch, 22 Okla. 475 , 99 Pac. 1080 , 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 273; Bilby v. Jones, 39 Okla. 613 , 136 Pac. 414 ; Dodd-Lear, etc., Co. v. Gyr, 44 Okla. 630 , 146 Pac. 16 .””
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.