Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 F.1d 321 - Stewart v. Wright

Stewart v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

147 F. 321 · 1906

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2010

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

50190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · McMullen v. Hoffman · Dennick v. Railroad Co.

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

  1. ““We are also of the opinion that, viewing the conduct of Wright in its most reprehensible light,* nevertheless the interest and welfare of the public would be better subserved by causing the loss to fall upon those who aided and assisted in criminal practices followed as an occupation than by the punishment of tlie individual victim. It would be doubtful wisdom to extend encouragement to organizations of confidence men who prey upon the public by allowing" Them the use of The rule ‘In pari delicto’ as a shield of defense, when a part of the scheme they employ is to place those they seek and then defraud in the position they rely on.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The principle of public policy is this, ‘Ex dolo malo non oritur actio.’ No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. If from the plaintiffs’ own stating, or otherwise, the cause of action appear to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.””
    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.