McIntire v. Pryor’s Empirical Analysis
173 U.S. 38 · 1899
Citation profile
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
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.
““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““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““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 majoritye.g. Barstow v. Beckett
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.