Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 U.S. 564 - George v. Tate

George v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

102 U.S. 564 · 1880

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
August 2003
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 17 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2003 · most notably Babcock v. Farwell (1910), Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. (1895)

49 federal appellate · 17 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 14 states

3801880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Dickerson v. Colgrove · Jones v. Guaranty and Indemnity Company · Hartshorn v. Day · Craig v. . Parkis

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

  1. ““It is well settled that the only fraud permissible to be proved at law in these cases is fraud touching the execution of the instrument, such as misreading, the surreptitious substitution of one paper for another, or obtaining by some other triclr or device an instrument which the party did not intend to give” — citing Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211 , 15 L. Ed. 605 .”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Proof of fraudulent representations by Myers and Green, beyond the recital in the bond, to induce its execution by the plaintiffs in error, was properly rejected. It is well settled that the only fraud permissible to be proved at iaw in these cases is fraud touching the execution of the instrument, — • such as misreading, etc.' The evidence was properly rejected for another reason. Where a party reaps the benefit which the bond gives in such cases, and is called upon to respond, he is not permitted to repudiate the obligation he has assumed.””
    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.