Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 U.S. 206 - Meyers v. Block Same

Meyers v. Block Same’s Empirical Analysis

120 U.S. 206 · 1887

Citation profile

201
cited by 201 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 19 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 201 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Inland Steel Co. v. United States (1939), Tullock v. Joab Mulvane (1902)

66 federal appellate · 19 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 20 states

31018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Russell v. Farley · Mary Bein and Richard Bein Her Husband Hawkins and James M'Masters v. Mary Heath · Florance v. Nixon

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

  1. “By the law of Louisiana, damages may be recovered for suing out an injunction without just cause, independently of a bond. (Florance v. Nixon ) 3 La. 291. But this cannot be done in the United States courts. Without a bond no damages can be recovered at all. Without a bond . . . or other obligation of like effect, a party against whom an injunction wrongfully issues can recover nothing but costs, unless he can make out a case of malicious prosecution.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is undoubtedly true, that a surety cannot be held beyond the terms or legal effect of his engagement; and when that has respect to the conduct or fidelity of the principal, or to any other matter usually contemplated as arising in the future, it is to be interpreted prospectively, and not retrospectively. But if, from the nature of the case, the subject of guaranty is a past transaction in whole or in part, and the language of the engagement, taken in its natural sense or legal effect, is broad enough to cover it, such language may properly be construed to do so.”
    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.