Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 U.S. 124 - Pritchard Ex'X v. Norton

Pritchard Ex'X v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

106 U.S. 124 · 1882

Citation profile

660
cited by 660 later decisions
49
cited 49 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

191 federal appellate · 76 district · 211 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 660 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Kossick v. United Fruit Co. (1961), Block v. Hirsh (1921)

191 federal appellate · 76 district · 211 state decisions — followed in 38 states

112018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ogden v. Saunders · Wayman v. Southard · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Scudder v. Union National Bank

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

  1. ““It has never been better described than it was incidentally by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 , 48, where he defines it as a principio of universal law — ‘the principle that in every forum a contract is governed by the law with a view to which it was ma do.’ The same idea had been expressed by Lord Mansfield in Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077, 1078. ‘The law of the place,’ he said, ‘can never be the rule where the transaction is entered into with an express view to the law of another country, as the rule by which it is to bo governed.’ And in Lloyd v. Guibert, Law Rep. 1 Q. B. 115, 120, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, it was said that ‘it is necessary to consider by what general law the parties intended that the transaction should be governed, or rather by what general law it is just to presume that they have submitted themselves in the matter.’ Le Breton v. Miles, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 261.””
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Generally speaking, the law of the place where the contract is to be performed is the law which governs as to its validity and interpretation. Story, in his work on Conflict of Laws (section 280) says: ‘But where the contract is, either expressly or tacitly, to be performed in any other place, there the general rule is,- in conformity to the presumed intention of the parties, that the contract, as to its validity, nature, obligation, and interpretation, is to be governed by the law of the place of performance.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Whether an assignee of a chose in action shall sue in his own name or that of his assignor is a technical question of mere process, and determinable by the law of the forum; but whether the foreign assignment on which the plaintiff claims is valid at all, or whether it is valid against the defendant, goes to the merits, and must be decided by the law in which the case has its legal seat.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.