Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 U.S. 271 - North v. Peters

North v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis

138 U.S. 271 · 1891

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
February 1959
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1959 · most notably Crossman v. Lurman (1904), Thompson v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance (1894)

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1201891190019101920193019401950decided

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 Freeman v. Howe · Insurance Company v. Boon · Buck v. Colbath · Watson v. Sutherland

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

  1. ““The main ground relied on l>,y tlie appellant Is that the relief sought should be refused because the appellee had a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, to wit, either the action of trespass or replevin. The answer to this ⅛ that the measure of damages in an action of trespass could not have exceeded the value of the property seized, with interest thereon from the date of the seizure, and that 1he only remedy in an action of replevin would have been limited to a recovery of the properly, and damages for its detention, with costs. It does not need argument to show Unit neither of these actions would afford as complete, prompt, and efficient a remedy for the destruction of the business, which, with the goods levied upon, constituted the appel-lee’s entire estate and pecuniary resources, as would be furnished by a court -of equity in preventing such an injury.””
    2 later decisions 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.