Tyler v. Savage’s Empirical Analysis
143 U.S. 79 · 1892
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 39 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. (1940), City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co (1898)
75 federal appellate · 39 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Reynes v. Dumont · Buzard v. Houston · Kilbourn v. Sunderland · Oelrichs v. Spain · Insurance Company v. Bailey
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The supreme court has often been called upon to consider the sixteenth section of. the judiciary act of 1789, and as often, either expressly or by the course of its decisions, has held that it is merely declaratory, making no alteration whatever in the rules of equity on the subject of legal remedy. It is not enough that there is a remedy at law. It must be plain and adequate, or, in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine of these and similar cases is that the court, for its own protection, may prevent matters purely cognizable at law from being drawn into chancery, at the pleasure of the parties interested; but it by no means follows, where the subject-matter belongs to the class over which a court of equity has jurisdiction, and the objection that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law is not made until the hearing in the appellate tribunal, that the latter can exercise no discretion in the disposition of such objection. Under the circumstances of this case, it comes altogether too late even though, if taken in limine, it might have’ been worthy of attention.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This was calculated naturally to produce the impression upon the plaintiff’s mind that the last dividend was declared on the 1st day of June, 1883; whereas, the last dividend was June 1, 1882. It must be inferred that, if the plaintiff had been informed, that no dividend had been declared' since June 1, 1882, he would not have subscribed for the stock. This suppression of material facts, which Tyler was1 bound, ■ in good faith, to disclose, was equivalent to a false representation.” - ■■■ ■ ■ -”
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.