Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 F.1d 476 - Cooper v. Brazelton

Cooper v. Brazelton’s Empirical Analysis

135 F. 476 · 1905

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 1951
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1951

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

10190519101920193019401950decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Goldey v. Morning News · Thompson v. Whitman · Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Blalock · Cooper v. Newell

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

  1. ““Appellees contend that they are entitled to credit on. their bond of the amount paid by Brazelton on his stock subscription, that B. did not desire to become a bona fide shareholder in the association, and was compelled to subscribe for shares in order to secure a part of the loan or advance made on his behalf. This contention cannot be upheld. The subscription to the stock by B., and the subsequent loan or advance of money on his behalf were two separate and independent transactions, and he cannot be heard to deny the validity or effectiveness of legal contracts entered into by him. It is neither alleged nor attempted to be shown that any fraud was perpetrated upon him, as that he is non compos mentis, and therefore he must be held to a performance, of his contracts. * * *””
    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.