Witt v. Cuenod’s Empirical Analysis
1897
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1955
2 federal appellate · 4 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 Kimberly v. Arms · Davis v. Schwartz · Chicago, Texas & Mexican Central Railway Co. v. Titterington · Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James · Moore v. Cross
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The option granted of taking up only such part of the record as appellant or plaintiff in error deems ‘necessary for a review of the judgment or decree,’ instead of the whole record, was intended to lighten the burden of expenses, but not in any way to put the opposite party to any disadvantage, or change his position in any respect.””
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.