Anderson v. Tway’s Empirical Analysis
143 F.2d 95 · 1944
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney (1982), The A. H. Emery Company v. Marcan Products Corporation, Marshall Control Products Corp., Hugh A. Mills, Ronald R. Marshall, and David E. Golding (1968)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Deitrick v. Greaney · Anderson v. Abbott · Holmgren v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the law that one who renews or makes payment on a note after knowledge of defenses that may be interposed to its collection, waives them. E. H. Taylor, Jr., & Sons v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Cir., 212 F. 898 ; Fitzpatrick v. Flannagan, 106 U.S. 648 , 1 S.Ct. 369 , 27 L.Ed. 211 ; and this extends to payment of interest. Rosenbloom v. Kaplan, 273 Mass. 411 , 173 N.E. 522 ; Brummett v. McGowan, 165 Okl. 59 , 24 P.2d 980 . It is in reliance upon this rule that the receiver urges the fraud to have been waived by Tway when he made his several renewals of the note and his several payments of interest thereon.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where newly discovered evidence contradicts a principal witness on important points, and attacks his credibility as a witness, the granting of a new trial upon newly discovered evidence of a contradictory and impeaching character, is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the [trial] court, and its determination will not be reversed without abuse of that discretion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Nuss
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.