Dickerson v. Colgrove’s Empirical Analysis
100 U.S. 578 · 1879
Citation profile
189 federal appellate · 32 district · 221 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 627 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (1959), Campbell v. Holt (1885)
189 federal appellate · 32 district · 221 state decisions — followed in 39 states
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 William Oliver and Micajah Williams v. Robert Piatt · The President Recorder and Trustees of the City of Cincinnati v. The Lessee of Edward White · Leffingwell v. Warren · Stoddard v. Chambers
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 627 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The vital principle, is, that he who, by his language or conduct, leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done, shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. Such a change of position is sternly forbidden * * ””
48 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This is,a possessory action, and the plaintiff, to entitle himself to recover, must have the right of possession; and whatever .takes away the right of possession will deprive him of the remedy- of ejectment. * * * This is the rule laid down by Lord Mansfield in Atkyns v. Hoarde, 1 Burr. 119. ‘Ejectment,’ says he, ‘is a possessory remedy, and only competent where the lessor of the plaintiff may enter, and every plaintiff in ejectment must show a right of possession as well as of irroperty.’ If the plaintiff in the present case was not entitled to possession, how, according to this authority, could he recover? If he had recovered, and a court of equity would have enjoined him from executing the judgment by a writ of possession, we ask, again, how could he recover in this action? Is not the concession that relief could be had in equity fatal to the proposition we are considering? * * * The reason given for the rule of inurement and estoppel by virtue of conveyances is that it avoids circuity of action. Does not the same consideration apply with equal force in eases of estoppel in pais ? Why is it 'necessary to go into equity in one ease and not in the other? * * * The common law is reason dealing by the light of experience with human affairs. One of its merits is that it has the capacity to reach .the ends of justice by the shortest paths. The passage of a title by inurement and estoppel is its work without the help of legislation. * * * Whether the title passed or not, the fa”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““You can tell D. for me lie need not fear anything from me; you can claim all there; this letter will be enough for him. I intend to give you and yours all my property there and more if you needed it.””
2 later decisions 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.