Hoyt v. Latham’s Empirical Analysis
143 U.S. 553 · 1892
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 11 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Johnston v. Standard Mining Co. (1893), Patterson v. Hewitt (1904)
47 federal appellate · 11 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury · Grymes v. Sanders · Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Graffam v. Burgess · Hayward v. National Bank
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a cestui que trust, with full knowledge of a purchase by or in the interest of his trustee, and of his right to dis-affirm it, elects to ratify such purchase, he is irrevocably concluded by such ratification, and the sale is thereafter not subject to successful assault at law or in equity. The cestui que trust may, upon notice of all the facts, ratify and affirm the sale by his acquiescence or silent approval. Where a trustee buys for himself and there is actual fraud, or the cestuis que trust are ignorant of the facts, the law is tolerant of delay on their part; but where the cestuis que trust have notice of the facts, they should not delay action in setting aside the sale for the purpose of seeing whether it is likely to prove a profitable speculation. And an unreasonable delay in taking the necessary steps to set aside a sale by a trustee to himself will imply an election to treat the sale as valid, and a confirmation of it may be justly inferred after the lapse of eight or ten years.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The character of vendor and that of purchaser cannot be held by the same person. They impose different obligations. Their union in the same person would at once raise a conflict between interest and duty, and, constituted as humanity is, in the majority of cases duty would be overborne in the struggle .... The complainant could have treated the purchase made by the defendant as a nullity .... But unfortunately for him there is more in the case. He has adopted and approved of the transaction .... Had he at once denied the validity of the transaction, or by any declaration or proceeding indicated any dissatisfaction with it, or even refrained from expressions of approval, he would have stood in a court of equity in a very different position.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cobb v. Newman
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.