Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 U.S. 143 - Scovill v. Thayer

Scovill v. Thayer’s Empirical Analysis

105 U.S. 143 · 1881

Citation profile

435
cited by 435 later decisions
40
cited 40 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 40 district · 206 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 435 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co. (1893), Richmond v. Irons (1887)

68 federal appellate · 40 district · 206 state decisions — followed in 38 states

113018811890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock · Terry v. Anderson · Sanger v. Upton · Fertilizing Company v. Hyde Park

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

  1. ““But under such circumstances, before there is any obligation upon a stockholder to pay without an assessment and call by the company, there must be some order' of a court of competent Jurisdiction, or at the very least some authorized demand upon him for payment.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. “It is true, that it has been held by this court that a stockholder cannot set np informalities in the issue of stock which the corporation had the power to create.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Upon the bankruptcy of the company his obligation was to pay to the assignees, upon demand, such an amount upon his unpaid stock as would be sufficient, with the other assets of the company, to pay its debts. lie was under no obligation to pay any more, and he was under no obligation to pay anything until the amount necessary for him to pay was at least approximately ascertained. Until then his obligation to pay did not become complete.””
    3 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.