Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 MINN 492 - Coleman v. Akers

Coleman v. Akers’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1945
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1945

6 state decisions

2019021910192019301940decided

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 Johnston v. Standard Mining Co. · Willard v. Wood · St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Eckel · Taylor v. Whitney

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.

  1. ““* * * In other words, the mere institution of a suit does not, of itself, absolve a plaintiff from the charge of laches. This doctrine does not depend upon the statute of limitations, but, in a great measure, upon the peculiar circumstances surrounding such case.””
    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.