Davis v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
141 U.S. 479 · 1891
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 169 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 258 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2015 · most notably Dewitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co. (1976), Cooper Petroleum Co. v. LaGloria Oil and Gas Co. (1969)
66 federal appellate · 5 district · 169 state decisions — followed in 33 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 Emerson v. Slater · Davis v. Patrick · Leonard v. Vredenburgh · James D'Wole Junior v. David Jacques
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 258 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the main purpose and object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to subserve some purpose of his own, his promise is not within the statute [of frauds], although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing the liability of another.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kelsey v. Munson · Cascaden v. Bell“. . . there is marked difference between a promise which, without any interest in the subject matter of the promise in the promisor, is purely collateral to the obligation of a third party, and that which, though operating upon the debt of a third party, is also and mainly for the benefit of the promisor. The case before us is in the latter category. [ 12 S. Ct. at 60 , 35 L. Ed. at 829 ; emphasis added]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Counsel for Davis place stress on the form of expression attributed by Patrick to Davis, to-wit: T will be personally responsible; I will see you paid;’ and contends that the import of such language is that of a collateral promise. There is force in this contention, as it implies that some one else was also bound, but the real character of a promise does not depend altogether upon the form of expression, but largely on the situation of the parties; and the question always is, what the parties mutually understood by the language,— whether they understood it to be a collateral or a direct promise, * * * ” Davis v. Patrick, 141 U.S. 479 , 12 S.Ct. 58 , 35 L.Ed. 826 .”
4 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.