Musser v. Adler’s Empirical Analysis
1885
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1935 · most notably School District v. Sheidley (1897), Cotton v. Ship-By-Truck Co. (1935)
1 federal appellate · 24 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 Northrup v. Mississippi Valley Insurance · Mason v. Pitt · Finley v. Quirk
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The character of the defense thus interposed at the close of the trial by prayers for instructions, was to admit that the services were rendered, but to avoid a recovery on the ground that they were illegal and contrary to public policy. Such a defense should be pleaded, and an intelligent issue made thereon. Here it is very clear that the question was raised incidentally, and that, too, at the close of the trial. "It is not enough that evidence may appear tending to establish facts which, if pleaded, would defeat a recovery. The general denial puts in issue the facts pleaded in the petition, not the liability. The facts, from which the law draws the conclusion of non-liability, must be pleaded in the answer when they are not stated in the petition (citing authorities). This defense, so far as pleading is concerned, is not unlike that of champerty, gaming, usury and the like. It is an affirmative defense, and should be clearly and distinctly stated. This was not done, not even attempted in this case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"This defense (that services rendered were contrary to public policy) so far as pleading is concerned, is not unlike that of champerty, gaming, usury, and the like. It is an affirmative defense, and should be clearly and distinctly stated.””
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.