Link v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 1957 · most notably 161 Mo. App. 185 - Royal Mining Company v. Fidelity Casualty Co. (1911), Herrman v. Daffin (1957)
35 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 Timothy Goodman v. John Simonds · Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Co. · King v. Doane · Shirk v. Neible · Hamilton v. Marks
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To constitute notice -<f an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiating must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““According to many authorities, it is ordinarily to be expected that the purchaser will testify in his own behalf that he had no actual notice of the circumstances attending the inception of the note, and the defendant will necessarily have to rely upon circumstances to impeach his title to the note. Hence, while the notice or knowledge of the purchaser in cases of fraud must be actual, it is not essential that the knowledge of plaintiff should be established by direct testimony, but, like any other fact such knowledge, may be established by circumstances and inference [citing authorities]. While neither negligence, nor knowledge of suspicious circumstances, nor failure to inquire into the consideration, will in and of itself be bad faith, such facts, when proven, may be considered by a jury in arriving at the ultimate fact of good or bad faith of the plaintiff.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arnett v. Sanderson
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.