Cresap v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1990
2 federal appellate · 12 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 Laycock v. Parker · Sweeney v. Baker · Stewart v. Tennant · Page v. Fowler · Vance Shoe Co. v. Haught
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.
““[T]he jury is permitted to increase the damages by an amount equal to interest, in cases involving the destruction of property by wrongful acts, using the value of the property as the basis of the calculation. ... [T]he owner of personal property, suing for damages in trover or trespass de bonis asportatis, is generally held to be entitled to recover the equivalent of interest calculated on the value thereof, as damages ... interest [is recoverable] on the value of property wrongfully sold by a sheriff, under an execution, in an action on an indemnifying bond. ... “The modern rule in some jurisdictions sanctions the allowance of an addition to the damages actually found, equal to interest thereon, in actions for breaches of contract, when a clear, firm, and certain basis for right of recovery of a certain sum at a definite time is established, whether the contract be for the payment of money or performance of some other act....” 82 W. Va. at 476-77, 96 S.E. at 70 . (Citations Omitted)”
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.