Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 IND 71 - Sondheim v. Gilbert

Sondheim v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis

1888

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
16
states following
December 1943
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently December 1943 · most notably Wright v. Hughes (1889), Citizens Nat. Bank v. Buckheit (1916)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 16 states

2101888189019001910192019301940decided

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 Irwin v. Williar · Milliken v. Pratt · Tracy v. . Talmage · Tilden v. Blair · Arnot v. . Pittston and Elmira Coal Co.

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

  1. ““ While contracts for the sale of property to be delivered in the future are valid, where the parties, or either one of them, actually contemplate a delivery of the subject-matter of the contract, yet if, under the guise of a contract which has the appearance of validity upon its face, the real intention is merely to speculate on the rise or fall of the market, without any purpose that any property shall be delivered or received,but with the understanding that at the appointed time the account is to be adjusted by paying or receiving the difference between the contract and the current price, then the whole transaction is illegal, as against public policy, and falls under the condemnation of the law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It would be an unwarrantable perversion of common and correct speech to hold that the consideration of a note which had been executed in order to obtain money with which to purchase options, or to put up as margins on cotton speculations, was money won by playing at a game, or betting on the hands of others who do play. However much dealing in options may resemble gambling or betting, and demoralizing and pernicious as it may be, it cannot, with any degree of propriety, be said to be winning or losing money by playing* at or betting upon a game, within the meaning of the statute.””
    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.