Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 U.S. 559 - George Whitman v. National Bank of Oxford

George Whitman v. National Bank of Oxford’s Empirical Analysis

176 U.S. 559 · 1900

Citation profile

219
cited by 219 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 9 district · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 219 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2004 · most notably Hale v. Allinson (1903), Bernheimer v. Converse (1907)

61 federal appellate · 9 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 30 states

80019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Huntington v. Attrill · Richmond v. Irons · Dennick v. Railroad Co. · Lake County v. Rollins · Flash v. Conn

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

  1. ““Dues from corporations shall be secured by individual liability of the stockholders to an additional amount equal to the stock owned by each stockholder; and such other means as shall be provided by law; but such indi-, vidual liabilities shall not apply to railway corporations, nor corporations for religious or charitable purposes.” Const, art. 12, § 2.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The liability 'which by the -Constitution and statutes is thus declared to rest upon the stockholder, though statutory in its origin, is contractual in its nature. It would not be doubted that, if the stockholders in this corporation had formed a partnership, the obligations of each partner to the others and to creditors would be contractual, and determined by the general common law in respect to partnerships. If Kansas had provided for partnerships with limited liability, and these parties, complying with the provisions of the statute, had formed such a partnership, it would also be true that their obligations to one another and to creditors would be contractual, although only in the- statute was to be found the authority for the creation of such obligations. And it is none the less so when these same stockholders organized a corporation under a law of Kansas, which prescribed the nature of the obligations which each thereby assumed to the others and to the creditors. While the statute of Kansas permitted the forming of the corporation under certain conditions, the action of these parties was purely voluntary. In other words, they entered into a contract authorized by statute.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Tho words ‘shall ho secured’ are not merely directory to the Legislature to make provision for such liability, but of themselves declare it. To this extent the Constitution is self-executing. Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140 , 50 N. W. 1110 , 16 L. R. A. 281 , 31 Am. St. Rep. 626 . The discretion of the Legislature extends beyond this, as indicated by the clause, ‘and such other means as shall he provided by law.’ A failure of the Legislature to create courts or prescribe modes of procedure may, it Is true, make ineffective this constitutional provision, hut does not destroy the liability; nor is it created by the act of the Legislature prescribing the mode of its enforcement. This Is the obvious meaning of the constitutional provision. ‘The simplest and most obvious interpretation of a Constitution, if In Itself sensible, Is the most likely to be that meant by the people in its adoption.’ Lamar, J., in Lake County v. Rollins, 130 IT. S. 662, 671, 9 Sup. Ct. 651 , 32 L. Ed. 1060 .””
    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.