Jones v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 13 district · 18 state decisions

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

1. ““It is unnecessary to set out all the facts which, according to the bill of exceptions, the evidence tended to establish. For the purpose of indicating the grounds upon which the case will be determined.it need only be said that, while there was evidence tending to show the payment by plaintiffs of the fair value of the property, its actual delivery to them at the time of the sale, and their continued possession of it until seized under these attachments, there was also evidence tending to prove that the circumstances attending the transaction were so unusual and suspicious as to suggest to business men of ordinary prudence the purpose of the vendors to hinder or defraud their creditors; and, from all the facts, the jury might reasonably have concluded that the plaintiffs were willing, by purchasing the property, to aid the vendors in defeating any efforts of their creditors, by the ordinary process of the law, to obtain satisfaction of their demands.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Herman v. McKinney

2. ““A further objection is made to the direction given by the court, ‘that fraud is never presumed, but must be established by evidence.’ Of the correctness of this proposition, or of its application to the case, there should be no question; but counsel seemed to argue that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that he did not participate in the fraud now conceded to have been intended by the Howard Bros. Fraud is not so lightly imputed. While certain circumstances will give rise to an inference of fraud, yet the law never presumes it. It devolves on him who alleges fraud to show the same by satisfactory proof; and the burden rested upon the creditors of Howard Bros., who assailed the good faith of Penn in this transaction, to show, by either direct or circumstantial evidence, that the transaction was fraudulent as to Penn.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Locust Bldg. Co.

3. ““But, such payment being shown, the vendee is entitled to a verdict and judgment, however fraudulent may have been the intent of the vendor, unless it appears affirmatively from all the circumstances that he purchased in had faith. And such bad faith may exist when the vendee purchases with knowledge of the fraudulent intent of the vendor, or under such circumstances as should put him on inquiry as to the object for which the vendor sells.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Calvi