Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 U.S. 641 - Kahn v. Smelting Co.

Kahn v. Smelting Co.’s Empirical Analysis

102 U.S. 641 · 1880

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Kimberly v. Arms (1889), Bissell v. (1885)

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 11 states

10018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Duryea v. Burt · Skillman v. Lachman

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

  1. ““Mining partnerships as distinct associations, with different rights and liabilities attaching to their members from those attaching to members of ordinary trading partnerships, exist in all mining communities; indeed, without them successful mining would be attended with difficulties and embarrassments, much greater than at present.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But if the relation of the plaintiff to his associates could not be considered as one of a mining partnership, he was still entitled to an accounting from them, if, as alleged by him, he was joint owner with them in the mine. They went into possession of the property under a conveyance from his co-tenants, and admit that whatever proceeds they have received from it were taken under a claim of ownership derived from that source. They have, upon their own averments, only a claim in any event, to two-thirds of the proceeds; and if the plaintiff was a tenant in common with them, they can only refuse his demand to the other third by repudiating thei/r own right to any portion. If a co-tenant, he had a right to call for an accounting, * * (Italics ours.)”
    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.