Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 U.S. 27 - Earling v. John Emigh O L

Earling v. John Emigh O L’s Empirical Analysis

218 U.S. 27 · 1910

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
August 1987
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1987 · most notably Frances Miedreich v. Constanze Lauenstein (1914), Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert (1916)

23 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 14 states

47019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Pullman's Co v. Central Transp Co · Logan County Nat Bank v. Townsend · Aldrich v. Chemical National Bank · Citizens' Central National Bank v. Appleton

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

  1. ““Although restitution of property obtained under a contract which was illegal * * * cannot be adjudged by force-of the illegal contract, yet, as the obligation to do justice rests upon all persons, natural and artificial, if one obtains the money or property of others without authority, the law, independently of express contract, will compel restitution or compensation.””
    2 later decisions 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.