Whitney v. Wyman’s Empirical Analysis
101 U.S. 392 · 1879
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 23 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 259 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William L Moore (1902), Scott v. Deweese (1901)
74 federal appellate · 23 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 32 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 National Bank v. Matthews · Utley v. Donaldson · Barth v. Clise
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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the meaning of the lawmaker is the law, so the meaning of the contracting parties is the agreement. Words are merely the symbols they employ to manifest their purpose that it may be carried into execution. If the contract be unsealed and the meaning clear, it matters not how it is phrased. * * * The intent developed is alone material, and when that is ascertained it is conclusive.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It seems to us entirely clear that both parties understood and meant that the contract was to be, and in fact was, with the corporation, and not with the defendants individually. “The agreement thus made could not be afterwards changed by either of the parties without the consent of the other. Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. S. 29 [ 24 L. Ed. 54 ], “But it is said the corporation at the date of these letters was forbidden to do any business, not having then filed its articles of association, as required by the statute. “To this objection there are several answers. “The corporation subsequently ratified the contract by recognizing and treating it as • valid. “This made it in all respeets what it would have been if the requisite corporate power had existed when it was entered into. Angell & Ames, Corp. sect. 804 and note. “The corporation having assumed by entering into the contract with the plaintiff to have the requisite power, both parties are estopped to deny it. Id. sect. 635 and note.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`The restriction imposed by the statute is a simple inhibition. It did not declare that what was done should be void, nor was any penalty prescribed. No one but the state could object. The contract is valid as to the plaintiff, and he has no right to raise the question of its invalidity.'"”
3 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.