Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 MD 356 - Wilson v. Watts

Wilson v. Watts’s Empirical Analysis

1856

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
4
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2008

2 district · 7 state decisions

201856186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In what this imbecility consisted does not appear---[T]hat some of the witnesses entertained no very high opinion of his ‘financiering’ abilities, it is also clearly shown by the proof that he was not non compos mentis.... ‘[WJhere a weak man gives a bond, if there be no fraud nor breach of trust in its obtention, equity will not set aside the bond, for the weakness of the obligor alone, if he be compos mentis. Nor will a court of equity measure the size of men’s understanding and capacity, there being no such thing as an equitable incapacity where there is legal capacity....’ “ ‘If, as has been observed, there is a general hardship affecting a general class of cases, it is a consideration for the Legislature, not for a court of justice. If there is a particular hardship from the particular circumstances of the case, nothing can be more dangerous or mischievous than, upon those particular circumstances, to deviate from a general rule of law.’ ””
    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.