Burke v. Dulaney’s Empirical Analysis
153 U.S. 228 · 1894
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 7 district · 245 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 371 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007 · most notably Cochran v. Norkunas (2007), Grannis v. . Stevens (1916)
79 federal appellate · 7 district · 245 state decisions — followed in 37 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 Ware v. Allen · Burnes v. Scott · Brown v. Spofford · Martin v. Cole
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 371 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““And the evidence offered by the appellant, and excluded by the court did not in any true sense contradict the terms of the writing in suit, nor vary their legal import, but tended to show that the written instrument was never in fact delivered as a present contract, unconditionally binding upon the obligor according to its terms from the time of such delivery, but was left in the hands of Dulaney, to become an absolute obligation of the maker in the event of his electing, upon examination or investigation, to take the stipulated interest in the property in question. In other words, according to the evidence offered and excluded, the written instrument upon which this suit is based was not — except in a named contingency — to become a contract or promissory note which the payee could at any time rightfully transfer. Evidence of such an oral agreement would show that the contingency never happened, and would not be in contradiction of the writing. It would prove that there never was any concluded, binding contract, entitling the party who claimed the benefit of it to enforce its stipulations. * * * ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The rule that excludes parol evidence in contradiction of a written agreement presupposes the existence in fact of such agreement at the time suit is brought. But the rule has no application if the writing was not delivered as a present contract * *”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the mere possession of a written instrument, in form a promissory note, by the person named in it as payee, is conclusive of his right to hold it as the absolute obligation of the maker.””
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.