Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 ILL 533 - Norton v. Gale

Norton v. Gale’s Empirical Analysis

1880

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
8
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Hayes v. O'Brien (1894), California Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church v. Seitz (1887)

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

6018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 McMahon v. . the New York and Erie Railroad Company · McAuley v. Carter · Curry v. Lackey · Korf v. Lull · Garred v. Macey & Doniphan

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

  1. ““That it was only appointing persons to settle an account of what was due between the parties for the value of the different articles. The parties had no contemplation of submitting any differences to the award of arbitrators, and no such terms ought to be imposed upon them against their own meaning and the meaning of the stamp acts.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But Avlua-o tlie office of ilio xiarty to whom the submission is made is limited to a simple appraisal of value, lie is expected to act on his own knowledge and opinions only; and hence neither evidence of witnesses nor statements of parties or counsel is contemplated.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““There was, here, no matter in controversy when the leases were executed, or, for that matter, when the appraisers were selected, and the object was to preclude or prevent the arising of differences, and not to settle differences which had arisen.””
    2 later decisions 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.