National Bank v. Burkhardt’s Empirical Analysis
100 U.S. 686 · 1879
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Grace v. American Central Insurance (1883), American National Bank v. Miller (1913)
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 33 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 Oddie v. . the Nat. City Bank of New York · Collender v. . Dinsmore · Adams v. Goddard · Bliven v. New England Screw 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a cheek on itself is offered to a bank as a deposit, the bank has the option to accept or reject it, or to receive it upon such conditions as may be agreed upon. If it be rejected, there is no room for any doubt or question between the parties. If, on the other hand, the check is offered as a deposit and received as a deposit, there being no fraud and the check genuine, the parties are no less bound and concluded than in the former case. Neither can disavow or repudiate what has been done. The ease is simply one of an executed contract.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““For most purposes the law regards the entire day as an indivisible unit. But when the priority of one legal right over another, depending upon the order of events occurring on the' same day is involved, this rule is necessarily departed from.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A general usage may be proved in proper cases, to remove ambiguities and uncertainties in a contract, or to annex incidents; but it cannot destroy, contradict, or modify wliat is otherwise manifest. Where the intent and meaning of the parties are clear, evidence of a usage to the contrary is irrelevant and unavailing. Usage cannot make a contract where there is none, nor prevent the effect of the settled rules of law. Barnard v. Kellogg, 10 Wall. 390 , 19 L. Ed. 987 ; Bliven v. New England Screw Co., 23 How. 433 , 16 L. Ed. 514 ; Collender v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200 , 14 Am. Rep. 224 ; Adams v. Goddard, 48 Me. 212 ; Thompson v. Biggs, 5 Wall. 674 , 18 L. Ed. 704 : Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 497, 42 Am. Dec. 87 .””
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.