Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 U.S. 643 - Andrus v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.

Andrus v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

130 U.S. 643 · 1889

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2001 · most notably Farrar v. Churchill (1890), Farnsworth v. Duffner (1891)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 19 states

1801889189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Sandford v. Handy · Clark v. . Baird · Upton v. Vail · Barney v. Dewey

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

  1. ““False and fraudulent representations upon the sale of real property may undoubtedly be ground for an action for damages when the representations relate to some matter collateral to the title of the property, and the right of possession which follows its acquisition, such as the location, quantity, quality and condition of the land.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The law does not afford relief to one who suffers by not using the ordinary means of information, whether his neglect be attributable to indifference or credulity.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But where the vendor, holding in good faith under an instrument purporting to transfer the premises to him, or under a judicial determination of a claim to them in his favor, executes a conveyance to the purchaser, with a warranty of title and a covenant for peaceable possession, his previous representations as to the validity of his title, or the right of possession which it gives, are regarded, however highly colored, as mere expressions of confidence in his title, and are merged in the warranty and covenant, which determine the extent of his liability.””
    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.