Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 U.S. 694 - Redfield v. Bartels

Redfield v. Bartels’s Empirical Analysis

139 U.S. 694 · 1891

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2002 · most notably General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (1983), Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States (1941)

38 federal appellate · 17 district · 13 state decisions

180189119001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co. · Sanborn v. United States · Erskine v. Van Arsdale · Barney v. Oelrichs

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

  1. ““Interest is given on money demands as damages for delay in payment, being just compensation to the plaintiff for a default on the part of his debtor. Where it is reserved expressly in the contract, or is implied by the nature of the promise, it becomes part of the debt, and is recoverable as of right; but, when it is given as damages, it is often matter of discretion. In cases like the present, of recoveries for excessive duties paid under protest, it was held in Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75 , that the jury might add interest, the plaintiff ordinarily being entitled to it from the time of the illegal exaction. But where interest is recoverable, not as part of the contract, but by way of damages, if the plaintiff has been guilty of laches, in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of his claim, it may be properly withheld. Bann v. Dalzell, 3 Car. & P. 376; Newel v. Keith, 11 Vt. 214 ; Express Co. v. Milton, 11 Bush, 49 .””
    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.