Tracy v. Tuffly’s Empirical Analysis
134 U.S. 206 · 1890
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1985 · most notably The Paquete Habana (1900), Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co. (1890)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Thomas Wood Junior v. United States · United States v. Tynen · Cook Co Nat Bank v. United States · McCool v. Smith
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it is true that repeals by implication are not favored by the courts, it is settled that, without express words ot' repeal, a previous statute will be held to be modified by a subsequent one, if the latter was plainly intended to cover the whole subject embraced by both, and to prescribe the only rules with respect to that subject that are to govern.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A debtor may make such assignment and shall thereupon stand discharged from all further liability to such consenting creditors. . . . Such debtor shall not be discharged from liability to such creditor who does not receive as much as one-third of the amount . . . allowed in his favor. . . Art. 263. Non-assenting creditors take nothing under the assignment, art. 265, but may garnishee any excess remaining after full payment of consenting creditors and the expenses of executing the assignment. Art. 271. “ The statute in question is in no sense an insolvent law, providing for the discharge of a debtor by a compliance with its terms without the consent of the creditor; but is a statute which, for the better protection of creditors, prescribes a mode for the administration of the estates of insolvents under assignments made by the debtors themselves, which would be good at common law, unaided by the statute, and, like any other trust, could be enforced in a court of equity in the absence of a statute providing a mode of administration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Star“If attacking creditors recognize and deal with a firm as a limited partnership, then they will be estopped from insisting that there was no such partnership, or that the terms of the partnership were not sufficiently stated in the notice of its formation.”
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.