Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran’s Empirical Analysis
142 U.S. 417 · 1892
Citation profile
160 federal appellate · 45 district · 120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 414 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably De Lima v. Bidwell (1901), Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904)
160 federal appellate · 45 district · 120 state decisions — followed in 29 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 Sarah Boone v. William Chiles · Lessee James Ewing v. Jacob Burnet · Felicit Fletcher v. Celine Babin · Snell v. Insurance Co.
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 414 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * He is bound not only by actual, but also by constructive notice, which is the same in its effect as actual notice. * * * [Emphasis in original.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Vice-Chancellor Wigram in Jones v. Smith, supra [1 Hare 43], laid it down that cases in which constructive notice had been established, resolved themselves into two classes: First, those in which the party charged had actual notice that the property in dispute was in some way affected, and the court has thereupon bound him with constructive notice of facts to a knowledge of which he would have been led by an inquiry into the matters affecting the property, of which he had actual notice; and, secondly, those where the court has been satisfied that the party charged had designedly abstained from inquiry for the purpose of avoiding notice. If there is not actual notice that the property is in some way affected, so that the case does not fall within the first class, and no fraudulent turning away from a knowledge of facts which the res gestae would suggest to a prudent mind, or gross and culpable negligence, so as to bring it within the second, then the doctrine of constructive notice would not apply.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“jurisdiction to reform written instruments where there is a mistake on one side and inequitable conduct on the other is undoubted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.