Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 U.S. 38 - Hinchman v. Lincoln

Hinchman v. Lincoln’s Empirical Analysis

124 U.S. 38 · 1888

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
July 1994
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1994 · most notably Houston East West Texas Railway Company v. United States (1914), Colgrove v. Battin (1973)

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 17 states

210188818901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Williams v. . Ingersoll · Zabriskie v. . Smith · Basset v. United States · Schile v. . Brokhahus

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

  1. ““It will already have been perceived that in many of the cases the test for determining whether there has been an actual receipt by the purchaser has been to inquire whether the vendor has lost his lien. Receipt implies delivery, and it is plain that so long as vendor has not delivered there can be no actual receipt by vendee. The subject was placed in a very clear •light by Holroyd, J., in the decision in Baldey v. Parker, 2 B. & G. 37: ‘Upon a sale of specific goods for a specific price by parting with the possession, the seller parts with his lien. The statute contemplates such a parting with the possession, and therefore, as long as the seller preserves his control over the goods so as to retain his lien, he prevents the vendee from accepting and receiving them as his own within the meaning of the statute.’ ” Cases in 20 Cyc. 249, 250 ; 27 Cyc. 244 ; 25 R. C. L. 620-622.”
    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.