Horst v. Roehm’s Empirical Analysis
84 F. 565 · 1898
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Norrington v. Wright · Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co. · Dingley v. Oler · Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. · Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble
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.
“Memorandum of agreement made and entered into by and between Horst Brothers, doing business in the city of New York, parties of the first part, and John Roehm, party of the second part.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roehm v. Horst“In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands, Philadelphia, this 25th day of August, 1893. Horst Bros. John Roehm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roehm v. Horst“Time of shipment, 20 bales each month, October, November, December, January, and February, except as hereafter provided.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roehm v. Horst
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.