Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 U.S. 572 - Teal v. Bilby

Teal v. Bilby’s Empirical Analysis

123 U.S. 572 · 1887

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
September 1988
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1988 · most notably James Easton v. State of Iowa (1903), Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp. (1972)

33 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

11018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Lattimore v. Harsen

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

  1. ““It is hardly pretended by counsel for plaintiffs that it was not competent, after the written contract was made and signed hy the parties, for them to mak'e another verbal contract in regard to some parts of it, which to that extent should be a substitute for the first one. There is nothing-in the nature- of the contract itself requiring it to be in writing, nor is there any principle-making it necessary that the new one should be reduced to writing because-the first was written. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 303; Goss v. Nugent, 5 B. & Ad. 58; Lattimore v. Harsen, 14 Johns. 330 ; Munroe v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 298 , 20 Am. Dec. 475 .””
    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.