The Conqueror’s Empirical Analysis
166 U.S. 110 · 1897
Citation profile
390 federal appellate · 111 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 999 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. (1944), Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf (1916)
390 federal appellate · 111 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Lacher · Head v. Hargrave · The Apollon · The " Potomac"
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 999 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]emurrage will only be allowed when profits have actually been, or may be reasonably supposed to have been, lost, and the amount of such profits is proved with reasonable certainty.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The North Star · The North Star“has been engaged, or was capable of being engaged in a profitable commerce....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The evidence of experts as to the value of professional services does not differ, in principle, from such evidence as to the value of labor in other departments of business, or as to the value of property. So far from laying aside their own general knowledge and ideas, the jury should have applied that knowledge and those ideas to the matters of fact in evidence in determining the weight to be given to the opinions expressed; and it was only in that way that they could arrive at a just conclusion. While they cannot act in any ease upon particular facts material to its disposition resting in their private knowledge, but should he governed by the evidence adduced, they may, and to act intelligently they must, judge of the weight and force of that evidence by their own general knowledge of the subject of inquiry * * * And, while great weight should always be given to the opinions of those famihar with the subject, they are not to be blindly received, but are to be intelligently examined by the jury in the light of their own general knowledge; they should control only as they are found to be reasonable.””
5 later decisions 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.