Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 U.S. 42 - Taylor v. Bemiss

Taylor v. Bemiss’s Empirical Analysis

110 U.S. 42 · 1884

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 9 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2009 · most notably Calhoun v. Massie (1920), Hazelton v. Sheckells (1906)

34 federal appellate · 9 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 22 states

3501884189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Wyman v. United States

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

  1. ““The bill of the minor heirs states that Mrs. Bemiss had been appointed by the proper court in Louisiana natural tutrix of these children. We are of opinion that this appointment made it- her duty to take the necessary legal steps to obtain this money from the United States, and that, whether the suit was brought in her own name or in hers jointly with her children, she was equally bound- to prosecute it with diligence, and to do all that was necessary to recover the money. It would be a queer condition of the law if, while it imposed this obligation upon' her, it gave her .no authority to employ counsel to prosecute the claim before the only legal tribunal which could allow it; and if she could employ counsel, it follows as a matter of course, she could make a contract for the amount of their compensation. This agreement would bind her as tutrix as well as in her individual right, and it is in both characters she professes to contract. “Such undoubtedly is the law of Louisiana, which must govern as to her powers as tutrix, since it is there she was appointed, and there both she and her children resided when she made the agreement with Taylor and Wood.””
    2 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.