King v. Doane’s Empirical Analysis
139 U.S. 166 · 1891
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1966 · most notably McCandless v. Furlaud (1935), Graham v. White-Phillips Co. (1935)
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Commissioners of Marion County v. Clark · Timothy Goodman v. John Simonds · Murray v. Lardner · Jones v. Guaranty and Indemnity Company · Pana v. Bowler
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, in an action by an indorsee against the maker, a negotiable note is shown to have been obtained by fraud, the presumption, arising merely from the possession of the instrument, that the holder in good faith paid value, is so far overcome that he cannot have judgment unless it appears affirmatively from all the evidence, whether produced by tbe one side or the other, that he, in fact, purchased for value. Smith v. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139 , 148 [ 20 L. Ed. 102 ]; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278 . 285 [ 24 L. Ed. 59 ]; Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505 , 509 [ 26 L. Ed. 866 ]; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529 . 542 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 704 , 27 L. Ed. 424 ]. In the case supposed he must show that he paid value. That fact being established, be will he entitled to recover, unless it is proved that he purchased with actual notice of defect in the title, or in bad failli, implying guilty knowledge or willful ignorance. Goodman v. Simonds. 20 How. 343 , 367 [ 15 L. Ed. 934 ]; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110 , 121 [ 17 L. Ed. 857 ]; Hotchkiss v. National Bank, 21 Wall. 354 , 359 [ 22 L. Ed. 645 ]; New Orleans v. Montgomery, 95 U. S. 18 [ 24 L. Ed. 346 ]; Swift v. Smith, 102 U. S. 442 , 444 [ 26 L. Ed. 193 ].””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Wood · In re Hill““He [the party claiming to be the bona fide purchaser] cannot have Judgment unless it appears, affirmatively from all the evidence, whether produced by the one side or the other, that he in fact purchased for value. * In the case supposed he must show that he paid value. That fact being established, he would be entitled to recover, unless it is proved that he purchased with actual notice oí defect in the title, or in bad faith, implying guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We do not mean to say that the real amount of the consideration paid by the holder may not under some circumstances be important in determining whether, within the rule adverted to, ho paid value. The amount paid may have been so disproportionate to the real value of the security purchased that the claim to have paid value will be treated as a mere pretense, and the security as having been obtained without paying anything for it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hill
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.