Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 F.1d 218 - McMillin v. Beves

McMillin v. Beves’s Empirical Analysis

147 F. 218 · 1906

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
February 1932
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1932

2 federal appellate ·

101906191019201930decided

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 Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron Company · Wylie v. . Marine National Bank · Sussdorff v. . Schmidt · Lloyd v. . Matthews · Walton v. Chesebrough

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendants requested plaintiff to find a purchaser for §275,000 mortgage bonds of a traction company operating certain street railroads in Oshkosh, Wis., and to offer them at a specified price with a certain amount of the stock of the company as a bonus, and promised the plaintiff a commission upon the sale of 2½ per cent. Pursuant to that proposition the plaintiff entered into communications with one Donnell, of Boston, and at the suggestion of Donnell had several interviews with the defendants to obtain information relative to the value of the securities, and reported the results to Donnell. February lf)t:h plaintiff brought Donnell to the office of defendants in New York City, introduced him, and told them he had offered the bonds to Donnell on the terms which they had suggested, and the defendants promised him that his commission should bo taken care pf.””
    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.