Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 U.S. 442 - Swift v. Smith

Swift v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

102 U.S. 442 · 1880

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
June 1964
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1964 · most notably Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell (1882), Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank (1890)

41 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 13 states

250188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Brine v. Insurance Co. · Timothy Goodman v. John Simonds · Samuel Fowler v. Harris Brantly

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

  1. ““One who purchases such paper from another, who is apparently the owner, giving a consideration for it, obtains a good title, though he may know facts and circumstances that cause him to suspect, or would cause one of ordinary prudence to suspect, that the person from whom he obtained it had no interest in it, or authority to use it for his own benefit, and though by ordinary diligence he could have ascertained those facts. He can lose Ms right only by actual notice or bad faith.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ The record assured them that Jackson was the owner of the lots when the release to Dji-er was made, and that Dyer-had no interest in the trust deed to be released. They, therefore, were informed that the release was substantially a release by Jackson to himself of a debt which he had assumed to pay. Even if his power to execute the trust confided to him by the trust deed was not extinguished by his'acquisition of the property, it was evident that he could not release the lien, while he remained the owner of the lots, without a gross abuse of his trust.””
    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.