Stoup v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2012
2 federal appellate · 6 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 Lustig v. U. M. C. Industries, Inc. · State v. Glessner · Brown v. Midwest Petroleum Co. · State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Matula · Schauer v. Gundaker Movits Real Estate 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party who opens up a subject is held either to be estopped from objecting to its further development or to have waived his right to object to further development.” State of Missouri, ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission v. Matulo, 910 S.W.2d 355, 362 (Mo.App.1995). Cross-examination as to matters first raised by the appellant during direct examination is not a proper basis for reversible error. See State v. Glessner, 918 S.W.2d 270, 281 (Mo.App.1996).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[f]or false representations to be actionable, there must exist a causal connection between the misrepresentation and the harm allegedly sustained.”
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.