Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 F.2d 1001 - Freeman v. McCarthy

Freeman v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis

153 F.2d 1001 · 1946

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
4
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Hoffman v. Celebrezze (1969), Bradford Exchange v. Trein's Exchange (1979)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

12019461950196019701980199020002010decided

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. Beebe · Kingsbury v. Buckner · White v. Miller · Starling v. West Erie Avenue Building & Loan Ass'n · Epstein v. Steinfeld

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

  1. “The attorney for the plaintiff, who signed the consent dismissing the action, admits in an affidavit on file that he had no express authority to do so, and this is the fact. Defendants apparently do not claim otherwise, but contend that such authority existed by implication in the attorney's retainer. In this contention the defendants are wrong. An attorney has no right to settle his client's case nor to consent to a dismissal of it upon the merits which in effect is a release of the claim, without express authority from his client. No such authority is implied in a mere retainer. White v. Joyce, 158 U.S. 128, 129 , 15 S.Ct. 788 , 39 L.Ed. 921 ; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U.S. 650 , 10 S.Ct. 638 , 33 L.Ed. 1047 ; United States v. Beebe, 180 U.S. 343 , 21 S.Ct. 371 , 45 L. Ed. 563 ; Schram v. Poole, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 725 ; Countryman v. Breen, 241 App.Div. 392 , 271 N.Y.S. 744 . The order in question was therefore not valid and the plaintiff did not learn of its entry until several months had passed.”
    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.