Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 U.S. 38 - McIntire v. Pryor

McIntire v. Pryor’s Empirical Analysis

173 U.S. 38 · 1899

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 5 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co. (1923), Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. (1900)

48 federal appellate · 5 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 16 states

3001899190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hammond v. Hopkins · Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Felix v. Patrick · Distilled Spirits · Allore v. Jewell

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

  1. ““The question of laches does not depend, as does the statute of limitation, upon the fact that a certain definite time has elapsed since the cause of action accrued, but whether, under all the circumstances of the particular case, plaintiff is chargeable with a want of due diligence in failing to institute proceedings before he did.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We do not wish to be understood as holding that the plaintiff, even in the case of actual fraud, may wait an indefinite time, or always so long as the statute of limitations would permit him to bring an action at law before asserting his rights; but where the fraud is clearly proven, the court will look with much more indulgence upon any disability under which the plaintiff may labor as excusing his delay.” •”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is certainly true that length of time is no bar to a trust clearly established; and, in a case where fraud is imputed and proved, length of time ought not, upon principles of eternal justice, to be admitted to repel relief. On the contrary, it would seem that length of time, during which the fraud has been successfully concealed and practiced, is rather an aggravation of the offense, and calls more loudly upon a court of equity to grant ample and decisive relief.””
    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.