Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 VA 749 - White v. Commonwealth

White v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 1982
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1982

5 state decisions

20193219401950196019701980decided

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 Hamilton v. Rathbone · Canal Company v. Hill · Stonega Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Saint v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. · Whitaker & Fowle v. Lane

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

  1. ““The directors, in this instance, were desirous of continuing business, and so at their election they were permitted to do so, provided they were willing to pledge their personal credit. Of course they were not obliged to make any such pledge, but there was no reason why they should not have been permitted to make it, and they did make it in furtherance of what they then believed was their own interest.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Now, therefore, if the obligors herein will indemnify and save harmless all of the depositors of the said Farmers Bank of Oak Hall, Horsey, Virginia, against loss by reason of the liability of the said bank to meet its obligations whenever demand therefor shall be made, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While the court, in construing a contract, may take into view the circumstances under which it was made, yet when a breach of it is averred its language must determine to what the parties to it bound themselves. Courts are not authorized to make contracts for them or to add to any stipulation which they have not seen proper to insert.”
    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.