Nutt v. Knut’s Empirical Analysis
200 U.S. 12 · 1906
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1949), St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W (1908)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hobbs v. McLean · McMullen v. Hoffman · California Bank v. Kennedy · Freedman's Saving & Trust Co. v. Shepherd · Trist v. Child
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Snell an agreement did not give 'tile attorney any interest or share in the claim itself, nor any interest in the particular money paid over to the claini- ant by the government.' It only established an agreed basis for any settlement that' might be made, after the allowance and payment of the claim, as to the attorney’s compensation. It simply created a legal obligation npon the part of the estate, which, if not recognized after the collection of the money, could have been enforced by suit for the benefit of the attorney, without doing violence to the statute or to the public policy established by its provisions.” ' .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hegness v. Chilberg““In effect or by its operation it transferred or assigned to the attorney, in advance of the allowance of the claim, such an interest as would secure the payment of the fee stipulated to be paid. All this was contrary to the statute, for its obvious x>urpose, in part, was to forbid any one who was a stranger to the original transaction to come between the claimant and the government, prior to the allowance of a claim, and who, in asserting his own interest or share in the claim, pending its examination, might embarrass the conduct of the,business on the part of the officers of the government.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Such an agreement did not give the attorney any interest or share in the • claim itself nor any interest in the particular money paid over to the claimant by the government. It only established an agreed basis for any settlement that might be made, after the allowance and payment of the claim, as to the attorney’s compensation.” (p. 21.)”
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.