Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 U.S. 572 - Lee v. Simpson

Lee v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

134 U.S. 572 · 1890

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
March 1958
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1958 · most notably Adams v. Cowen (1900), Farnum v. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on Lives & Granting Annuities (1916)

8 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 states

1401890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Doe Lessee of Poor v. Considine · Charles Carroll v. Orrin Safford · Fenn v. Holme · Alexander Finlay v. William King's Lessee · Fussell v. Gregg

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. ““The guestion of the execution of a power is very fully discussed by Mr. Justice Story in Blagge v. Miles [Fed. Cas. No. 1479], 1 Story, 426 . The rule laid down in that case is that if the donee of the power intends to execute it, and the mode be in other respects unexceptionable, that intention, however manifested, whether directly or indirectly, positively, or by just implication, will make the execution valid and operative; that the intention to execute the power must be apparent and clear, so that the transaction is not fairly susceptible of any other interpretation, but, if it be doubtful, under all the circumstances, then that doubt will prevent it from being deemed an execution of the power; and that it is not necessary, however, that the intention to execute the power should appear by express terms or recitals in the instrument, but it is sufficient that it appears by words.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “otherwise be ineffectual, or a mere nullity; in other words [have] no operation, except as an execution of the power.”
    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.