Cunningham v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
157 F.2d 859 · 1946
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1992
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury Granite Co. · London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. Smoot · Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. United States · Bronx Brass Foundry, Inc., v. Irving Trust 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Nevertheless, interest in excess of the maximum penalty of the undertaking may become due from the surety, but only because of the surety’s own default. Nothing is due from the surety until he is notified of his principal’s delinquency; if he then unjustly withholds payment, he is liable for interest because of his unjustifiable detention of the money. He is not required to take the initiative in making payment, and stands only as security until a claimant makes actual demand; then only does interest begin to accrue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.