Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 F.1d 774 - Chandler v. Rutherford

Chandler v. Rutherford’s Empirical Analysis

101 F. 774 · 1900

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
states following
June 1947
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1947

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

3019001910192019301940decided

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 Lammon v. Feusier · People Ex Rel. Kellogg v. Schuyler · 3 Ind. App. 399 - Hawkins v. Thomas · Holliman v. Carroll's Adm'rs · Eaton v. . Kelly .

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

  1. ““It will be observed, however, that no offense bad been committed in the deputy marshal’s presence when he attempted to arrest the plaintiff, and that such knowledge as he had of an offense having been committed was derived wholly from hearsay. * * * When an officer seeks to justify an arrest without a warrant under a statute like the one now under consideration, and the act for which the arrest was made was not committed in his presence, it is manifest that he must show that he acted on information such as would justify a reasonable man in, believing that the particular person arrested was guilty of a felony.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The liability on the bond, by the terms whereof the sureties agreed that the marshal and his deputies should faithfully perform the duties of his office, is purely contractual. Such an obligation is materially different from an undertaking by the sureties to be responsible for any wrongful act of the marshal and his deputies which they may commit under the pretense that they are discharging an official duty.”
    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.