Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 ARK 101 - Blum v. Pulaski County

Blum v. Pulaski County’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ayers v. Anderson-Tully Co.

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

  1. “is not final in the sense that it concludes the rights of the parties to the action, and . . . the appeal in this case is premature. The order does not end the action, even if it be erroneous, for the action is still pending. The error of reviving the action, if error it be, is like any other erroneous ruling of the court, to be reviewed on appeal from the final decree in the cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is not final in the sense that it concludes the rights of the parties to the action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.