Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 F.1d 897 - The Texas

The Texas’s Empirical Analysis

226 F. 897 · 1915

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 1980
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1980

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

5019151920193019401950196019701980decided

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 The Volund · Smith v. Davis · Jacobsen v. Lewis Klondike Expedition Co. · Edison v. American Mutoscope Co. · Lee Injector Mfg. Co. v. Penberthy Injector Co.

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

  1. ““The next question is whether the District Court was correct in refusing to tax as i)art of the costs the premiums that were paid for the entry of corporate security. The precise point is not whether, in our opinion, modern conditions have made it desirable that such premiums should be taxed as costs, but whether any statute, or any rule or equivalent custom, in the district of Delaware, required or .-justified the taxation. The clerk rejected the items on the following ground: T do not know of any statute that makes such items taxable as disbursemenls or otherwise, and there is no rulo of court or established practice in this district permitting a recovery of such items. I am aware of no decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or of the District Court for this district on this subject.’ And the District Court affirmed the clerk’s decision. In our opinion the clerk was right in saying that no statute makes such an item taxable. The subject has been sufflciently discussed in the following cases [citing cases]. And we shall only add our approval of the argument that a rule of court, or a practice equivalent thereto, is needed to justify the taxation. But wo may also say that we think such a rule or practice has become so desirable that we feel confident the court below will take an early opportunity to conform its procedure in this respect to the custom prevailing in other districts.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “such a rule or practice has become so desirable that we feel confident the court below will take an early opportunity to conform its procedure in this respect to the custom prevailing in other districts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a rule of court, or a practice equivalent thereto, is needed to justify the taxation (of premiums paid for posting a bond).”
    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.