Glenn v. Marbury’s Empirical Analysis
145 U.S. 499 · 1892
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 14 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1979 · most notably United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1949), Great Western Mining Manufacturing Company v. Charles a Harris D B (1905)
39 federal appellate · 14 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Pritchard Ex'X v. Norton · Scovill v. Thayer · Hawkins v. Glenn · Glenn v. Liggett
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The 'right which the express company acquired by the defendant’s subscription to its capital stock was only a chose in action. It passed by the deed of September 20, 1800, to the trustees, Blair, Kelly, and O’Donnell, but subject to the condition that a chose in action is not assignable so as to authorize the assignee to sue at law, in his owu name, unless the right to do so is given by a statute, or by settled law, in the jurisdiction where suit is brought. This is the well-established rule of the common law, and the common law touching this subject governs in the District of Columbia.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We liave lately decided, after full consideration of the authorities, that an assignee of a chose in action on which a complete and adequate remedy exists at law cannot, merely because his interest is an equitable one, bring a suit in equity for the recovery of the demand. Hayward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672 , 1 Sup. Ct. 544 , 27 L. Ed. 271 . He must bring an action at law in the name of the assignor to his own use. This is true of all legal demands standing in the name of a trustee, and held for the benefit of cestuis quo trust.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As this corporation, notwithstanding it may have ceased the prosecution of the objects for which it was organized, could still proceed in the collection of debts, the enforcement of liabilities, and the application of its assets to the payment of its creditors, all corporate powers essential to those ends remained unimpaired.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.