Hunt v. Rousmanier's Administrators’s Empirical Analysis
21 U.S. 174 · 1823
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 9 district · 241 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 389 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (1944), Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock (1875)
62 federal appellate · 9 district · 241 state decisions — followed in 39 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 Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock · Clement Hunt v. Christopher Rhodes · The Bank of the United States v. James Daniel et al. · Taylor v. Benham
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 389 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We hold it to be clear that the interest which can protect a power after the death of the person who creates it, must be an interest in the thing itself. In other words, the power must be engrafted on the thing." 8 Wheat. 174, 204 ; 5 L.Ed. 589, 597 .”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although we do not find the naked principle, that relief may be granted on account of ignorance of law, asserted in the books, we find no case in which it has been decided, that a plain and acknowledged mistake in law is beyond the reach of equity.” Hunt v. Rousmanier’s Adm’rs, 8 Wheat. 174 , 21 U.S. 174 , 215, 5 L.Ed. 589 (1823).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where a loiter of attorney forms a part of a contract, and is a security for money, or for the performance of any act which is doomed valuable, it is generally made irrevocable in terms, or. if not so, is deemed irrevocable in law. 2 Esp. N. P. 565. Although a letter of attorney depends, from its nature, on the will of the person making it, and may, in general, be recalled at his will, yet if he binds himself for a consideration in terms, or by the nature of his contract, not to change his will, the law will not permit him to change it. liousmanier, therefore, could not, during his life, by any act of his own, have revoked this letter of attorney. But does it retain its efficacy after death'/ We think it does not””
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.