Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 N.J.L. 268 - Miller v. Eisele

Miller v. Eisele’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 1987
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1987

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

80193319401950196019701980decided

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 Railroad Company v. Commissioners · Harmony v. . Bingham · City of Chicago v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance · Adrico Realty Corp. v. City of New York · Tripler v. Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty

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

  1. “Acts or threats cannot constitute duress unless they are wrongful, even though they exert such pressure as to preclude the exercise of free judgment. But acts may be wrongful within the meaning of this rule though they are not criminal or tortious or in violation of a contractual duty. Just as acts contracted for may be against public policy and the contract vitiated for that reason, though the law imposes no penalty for doing them, so acts that involve abuse of legal remedies or that are wrongful in a moral sense, if made use of as a means of causing fear vitiate a transaction induced by that fear, though they may not in themselves be legal wrongs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. “We are constrained by the weight of authority to adopt the view which holds that to constitute duress which in contemplation of the law will recognize as sufficient to make or render a payment of money involuntary there must be some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting payment, from which the party making the payment has no other means of immediate and adequate relief of his person or of his property.””
    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.