Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 S.C. 82 - Muse v. Clark

Muse v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 1928
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Sanders v. Bagwell · Holbart v. Lauritson

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

  1. ““Where a negotiable instrument is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is avoided except as against the party who has himself made, authorized or assented to the alteration and subsequent indorsers; but when an instrument has been materially altered and is in the hands of the holder in due course, not a party to the alteration, he may enforce payment thereof according to its original tenor.””
    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.