Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 F.1d 452 - Bates v. Carpentier

Bates v. Carpentier’s Empirical Analysis

98 F. 452 · 1899

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
January 1982
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1982

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

601899190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Torrence v. Shedd · Mitchell v. Smale · Louisville v. Ide · Pirie v. Tvedt · Stanbrough v. Cook

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

  1. ““ * * * the plaintiff does not aver that all the defendants claim title to the realty jointly, or under one common source of title. He brings the various named defendants into the suit for the purpose of determining and adjudicating each and every claim or interest they may set up adverse to his own, no matter how diverse or opposed to each other. And where an action is brought by one plaintiff against several defendants, not because they claim any joint interest or are subject to any joint liability in respect to the subject-matter of the action, but merely for convenience, it will generally be capable of resolution into separable controversies between the plaintiff and the individual defendants. * * * ””
    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.