Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 U.S. 546 - Pierce v. Indseth

Pierce v. Indseth’s Empirical Analysis

106 U.S. 546 · 1882

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance (1889), Farmers & Merchants Bank of Monroe v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (1923)

17 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states

100188218901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Ennis v. Smith · Jerome Pillow v. Truman Roberts · Townsley v. Sumrall · Carter v. Burley

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

  1. “‘ ‘ The certificate of the protest of the bill of exchange by the notary in Norway was properly received in evidence. It is in due form, and bears what purports to be the seal of the notary. * * * Besides the court will take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public, for their office is recognized by the commercial law of the world. We thus recognize the seal of the document in question as that of the notary in Norway, and as such authenticating the certificate of protest and entitling it to full faith and credit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It sometimes happens that the several parties to a bill, as drawers or indorsers, reside in different countries, and much embarrassment wight arise in such cases if the protest was required to conform to the laws of each of Hie countries. One protest is sufficient, and lhat must be in accordance with the laws of the place where the bill is payable.””
    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.