Sturm v. Boker’s Empirical Analysis
150 U.S. 312 · 1893
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 77 district · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 536 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911), Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William L Moore (1902)
170 federal appellate · 77 district · 174 state decisions — followed in 40 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 Rubber Company v. Goodyear · Cragin v. Powell · Brant v. Virginia Coal and Iron Company et al. · Sarah Boone v. William Chiles
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 536 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The recognized distinction between bailment and sale is that, when the identical article is to be returned in the same or in some altered form, the contract is one of bailment, and the title to the property is not changed. On the other hand, when there is no obligation to return the specific article, and the receiver is at liberty to return another thing of value, he becomes a debtor to make the return, and the title to the property is changed.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An option to purchase if he liked is essentially different from an option to return a purchase if he should not like. In one case the title will not pass until the option is determined; in the other the property passes at once, subject to the right to rescind and return.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “This language did not mislead or induce either the defendants or the insurance companies to alter or change their position in any respect whatever, nor influence their conduct in any way. Both the defendants and the insurance companies had the written contracts before them, and were presumed, as a matter of law, to know their legal effect and operation. What the complainant said in his testimony was a statement of opinion upon a question of law, where the facts were equally well Icnown to both parties. Such statements of opinion do hot operate as an estoppel. If he had said, in express terms, that by that contract he'was responsible for the loss, it would have been, under the circumstances, only the expression of an opinion as to the law of the contract, and not a declaration or admission of a fact, such as would estop him from subsequently taking a different position as to the true interpretation of the written instrument.””
2 later decisions 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.