Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 U.S. 581 - Lonergan v. Buford

Lonergan v. Buford’s Empirical Analysis

148 U.S. 581 · 1893

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
February 1987
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 5 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1987 · most notably United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1942), Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp. (1942)

40 federal appellate · 5 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 12 states

2601893190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Radich v. Hutchins · Silliman v. United States · Harmony v. . Bingham · Brumagim v. Tillinghast

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

  1. ““Finally, it is objected that the last payment was voluntary, and therefore cannot be recovered, cither in whole or in part, although it was in terms made under protest. It appears from the testimony that the defendants refused to deliver any of the property without full payment. This was at the commencement of the winter. The plaintiffs had already paid $175,500, and without payment of the balance they could not get possession of the property, and it might be exposed to great loss unless projoerly cared for during the winter season. Under those circumstances, 'we think the payment was one under duress. It was apparently the only way in which possession could be obtained, except at the end of a lawsuit, and in the -meantime the property was in danger of loss or destruction. The ease comes within the range of the case of Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U. S. 210, 213 [ 24 L. Ed. 409 ], in which the rule is thus stated: 'To constitute the coercion or duress which will be regarded as. sufficient to make the payment involuntary, * * * there must be some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or believed to be possessed, by the party exacting ox receiving the payment over the person or property of another, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief, than by making the payment.’ As stated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the doctrine established by the authorities is that ‘a, payment is not to be regarded as compulsory unless made to emancipate the person or”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““To constitute tlie coercion or duress which wiH be regarded as sufficient to make the payment involuntary, * * * there must he some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or believed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment over the person or property of another, from which the latter has no other means of immediate, relief than by making the payment. As stated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the doctrine established by the authorities is that ‘a payment is not to be regarded as compulsory, unless made to emancipate the person or property from an actual and existing duress imposed upon it by the party to whom the money is paid.’ Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill (Md.) 425 [ 45 Am. Dec. 145 ].””
    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.