Daniels v. Tearney’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 415 · 1880
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 17 district · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 280 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal (1959)
46 federal appellate · 17 district · 139 state decisions — followed in 34 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 Railway Company v. McCarthy · Plowden Weston v. The City Council of Charleston · Edwards v. Kearzey · Brown v. Piper · Bronson v. Kinzie
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 280 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled as a general proposition, subject to certain exceptions not ‘necessary to be here noted, that, when a party bas availed bimself for bis benefit of an unconstitutional law, he cannot, in a subsequent litigation with others not in that position, aver its unconstitutionality as a defense, although such unconstitutionality may have been pronounced by a competent judicial tribunal in another suit. In such cases the principle of estoppel applies with full force and conclusive effect.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a bond is voluntarily entered into and the principal enjoys the benefits it was intended to secure, and a breach occurs, it is then too late to raise the question of its validity. The parties are estopped from availing themselves of such a defense. ’ ’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the case first cited (Furguson v. Landram) an injunction was applied for to prevent the collection of a tax, authorized by an act of the legislature passed during the late civil war, to enable the people of a country to raise volunteers and thus avoid a draft for soldiers, and that object had been accomplished. In disposing of the case the court well askod: ‘Upon what principles of exalted equity shall a man be permitted to receive a valuable consideration through a statute procured by his own consent, or subsequently sanctioned by him, or from which he derived an interest and consideration, and then keep the consideration anti repudiate the statute?’ ””
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.