Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 U.S. 17 - Lammon v. Feusier

Lammon v. Feusier’s Empirical Analysis

111 U.S. 17 · 1884

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
October 1995
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 6 district · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1995 · most notably Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), Bush v. Lucas (1983)

24 federal appellate · 6 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 28 states

280188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Freeman v. Howe · Krippendorf v. Hyde · Buck v. Colbath · People Ex Rel. Kellogg v. Schuyler

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

  1. “according to the decisions of this court the rightful owner cannot maintain an action of • replevin against him, nor recover the property specifically in any way, except in the-court from which the writ is issued.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““He was an officer, had authority to attach goods on mesne process on a suitable writ, professed to have such process, and thereupon took the plaintiff's goods; that is, the goods of Bean, for whose use and benefit this action is brought, and who therefore may be called the plaintiff. He therefore took the goods colore officii, and. though he had no sufficient warrant for taking them, yet he is responsible to third persons, because such taking was a breach of his official duty.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““And the liability of the sureties in such cases has been affirmed by a great preponderance of authority, including decisions in the highest courts of Pennsylvania, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and California, and in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.””
    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.