Edwards v. Bates County’s Empirical Analysis
163 U.S. 269 · 1896
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005), Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green (1946)
97 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 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 Nesbit v. Independent District of Riverside · Aurora City v. West · Amy v. Dubuque · Brown v. Webster
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Not only may a, suit be maintained upon an unpaid coupon, in advance of the maturity of the principal debt, but the holder of a coupon is entitled to recover interest thereon from its maturity.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Each matured coupon is a separable promise, and gives rise to a separate cause of action. It may be detached from the bond and sold by itself. Indeed, the title to several matured coupons of the same bond may be in as many different persons, and upon each a distinct and separate action be maintained. So, while the promises of the bond and of the coupons in the first instance are upon the same paper, and the coupons are for interest due upon the bond, yet the promise to pay the coupon is as distinct from that to pay the bond as though the two promises were placed in different instruments upon different paper.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fritchen v. Mueller“In ascertaining, therefore, the jurisdictional sum in dispute, the sum of the coupons should have been treated as an independent principal demand, and not as interest; and in holding otherwise the lower court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error.”
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.