French v. Dwiggins’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1988), Jones v. VIP Development Co. (1984)
3 federal appellate · 58 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 Balson v. Dodds · F. Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. · Kilbreath v. Rudy · Wilfong v. Batdorf · State ex rel. Holdridge v. Industrial Commission
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [Substantive law is that which creates duties, rights, and obligations, while procedural or remedial law prescribes methods of enforcement of rights or obtaining redress."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... In contrast to the case at bar, Osai, supra, dealt with the retroactive application of a penalty provision, not with compensatory damages. A statute which imposes treble damages as a penalty for misconduct is obviously intended to prevent or discourage such activities, or, in other words to conform the public’s conduct. As discussed earlier, the expansion of allowable damages in wrongful death actions does not purport to control an individual’s course of affairs, but merely seeks to justly compensate those persons injured as a direct consequence of a wrongful death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, not less than twenty-eight days after service thereof or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tucker v. McQuery
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.