Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 Md. 231 - Nagel v. Ghingher

Nagel v. Ghingher’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 1953
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1953

14 state decisions

130193419401950decided

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 Panama Co v. Johnson · Fourth Nat Bank of City of New York v. Francklyn · John Fischer v. City of St Louis · Antoni v. Greenhow · Tennessee v. Sneed

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

  1. ““In other words, what he would get in the event of a universal liquidation would be his share in the residue for distribution; and what he would obtain under the statute would be a judicial finding of what the present cash value of that share would be. The effect substantially is that the dissenting party is deprived of one remedy and given another of equal efficacy, adequacy, and benefit, because it is not to be assumed that the finding by the court of the present cash value of what a dissenting party’s interest would be on the basis of a final liquidation of the banking institution would not be the fair and reasonable equivalent of the value of what would have been received in the event of an actual and complete judicial liquidation. The value is found in the first method by judicial conversion, and in the new method by judicial estimation. Therefore, there was no material change by the alteration of the remedy, and, consequently, the alteration does not impair the obligation of contract, even though the new remedy be less convenient or less prompt and speedy.””
    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.