Tindle v. . Birkett’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Ultramares Corp. v. Touche (1931), Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedTindle v. Birkett
Relationships
Relies on Eaton, Cole Burnham Co. v. . Avery · Morgan v. . Skiddy · Hubbard v. . Briggs · MacUllar v. . McKinley · Bliss v. . Sickles
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t cannot be doubted that the defendant spoke false and deceitful words to the plaintiffs through the agency just as effectually as if they had met face to face, and the statements had been made directly and personally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in reliance on the correctness of the rating, without any other knowledge [of the defendant's financial situation],”
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.