McCue v. Hope’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1965
1 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 Clark v. Marbourg · Schmoker v. Miller
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is insisted by the defendant that the case should be treated as an action for relief on the ground of fraud. . . . It is rather an action to open up an account and settlement between the parties, to make a new settlement, and to adjust the rights of the parties under their written agreement.” (McCue v. Hope, 97 Kan. 85, 87 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCue v. Hope
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.