Foley v. Hardy’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1995
8 state decisions
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 Wettlaufer v. Baxter · Anderson v. Goodwin · 13 Cal. App. 331 - Dollar v. International Banking Corp. · King Cattle Co. v. Joseph · Leach v. Urschel
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The negotiable instruments law was adopted for the purpose of establishing uniformity in the law pertaining to negotiable instruments. (First State Bank of Nortonville v. Williams, 164 Ky. 143 .) The purpose of the law, among others, is to establish definite rules by which persons dealing in bills and notes may, by examining an instrument, know whether or not it is a negotiable instrument. Perhaps some of the rules respecting negotiable instruments are arbitrary (Killam v. Schoeps, 26 Kan. 310 ), but they should be followed, for, to hold otherwise would make the law of no force.” (Foley v. Hardy, 122 Kan. 616, 618 , 253 Pac. 238 .)”
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.