Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 U.S. 363 - Blair v. County of Cuming

Blair v. County of Cuming’s Empirical Analysis

111 U.S. 363 · 1884

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Cole v. City of La Grange (1885), Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. (1885)

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

13018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Osborne v. County of Adams · Lowell v. City of Boston · Davenport v. County of Dodge · Township of Burlington v. Beasley

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

  1. ““If the commissioners had power to bind the county for the payment of the principal and interest of a bond transferable by delivery, the coupons which are appended to them are the appointed evidence of the agreement of the parties, to show who is entitled, as holder of the bond, to receive the interest due at a particular date. They are attached to the bonds for the convenience of the officers of the county, and to facilitate their negotiation, and thereby add to their commercial value. The obligation to pay the interest is to be found in. the bond, not in the coupon.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It was not necessary that all the commissioners should sign the bonds. What was done was not an issuing of the bonds by the chairman and clerk. The coupons, in the form in which they were issued, annexed to the bond, were adopted as coupons by the statement in the body of the bond; and the question as to any one of them, when detached, is only one of genuineness and identity.””
    1 later decision 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.