County of Presidio v. Noel-Young Bond & Stock Company’s Empirical Analysis
212 U.S. 58 · 1909
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 24 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1980 · most notably Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. (1924), Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
73 federal appellate · 24 district · 15 state decisions
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
reviewedFrancis v. Howard County (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · Swift v. Tyson · Burgess v. Seligman · Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell · Russell v. Place
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the decision in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 , 19, 10 L.Ed. 865 , 871, it has been the accepted doctrine of this court that, in respect of the doctrines of commercial law and general jurispmdence, the courts of the United States will exercise their own independent judgment, and, in respect to such doctrines, will not be controlled by decisions based upon local statutes or local usage, although, if the question is balanced with doubt, the courts of the United States, for the sake of harmony, ‘will lean to an agreement of views with the state courts.’ ” (Italics supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When, therefore, the refunding bonds in suit were issued with the recitals therein contained, the city thereby represented that it issued them under and in pursuance of and in conformity with the act of 1S93 and the Constitution of the .state. As nothing on the face of the bonds suggested that such representations were false; purchasers had the right to assume that they were' true, especially in view of the broad recital that everything required by law to be done and performed before executing the bonds had been done and performed by. the city. As there was power in the city to issue refunding bonds to be used in discharging its outstanding indebtedness of a specified land, purchasers were entitled to rely upon the truth of the recitals-in'the bonds that they were of the class which the act of 1893 authorized to be refunded. They were under no duty to go further and examine the ordinances of the city to ascertain whether the recitals were false. On the contrary, purchasers could assume that the ordinances would disclose nothing in conflict with the recitals in the bonds.””
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.