Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 638 - Lumber Co. v. Buchtel

Lumber Co. v. Buchtel’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 638 · 1879

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
August 1982
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1982 · most notably Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States (1897), Southern Pac Co v. United States

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states

260187918801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac

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

  1. ““The extent and effect of a former recovery between the same parties upon the same question raised in a new action have been so often considered and determined by this court that it would be a waste of time to go over the argument and repeat our views on the subject. Our latest expression of opinion, made after deliberate consideration, is found in the case of Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 . To the reasons there adduced we have nothing to add. And we are of opinion that the second defense is also concluded by the former adjudication. The finding of the referee, upon which the judgment was rendered—and this finding, like the verdict of- a jury, constitutes an essential part of the record of the case—shows that no representations as to the quantity of timber on the land sold were made to the defendant by the plaintiff, or in his hearing, to induce the execution of the contract of guaranty. This finding, having gone into the judgment, is conclusive' as to the facts found in all subsequent controversies between the parties on the contract. Every defense requiring the negation of this fact is met and overthrown by that adjudication.””
    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.