State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1877
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 1947 · most notably City of Chicago v. Gage (1880), Board of County Commissioners v. Tower (1881)
2 federal appellate · 39 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Drury v. Foster · Smith v. Crooker · Vinton v. Peck · Hunt v. Adams · Field v. Stagg
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is almost an elementary principle, laid down in all the books, that a bond is not ‘executed’ until it is delivered, for delivery is of the essence of a deed. It takes effect only from execution, on delivery, and, until delivery, it is not a contract, and is of no further value than the paper upon which it is written.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The management of school and university lands is, by G. S. c. 38, intrusted to a separate department of the state government, the head of which is called 'commissioner of the land office/ And although certain county officers, as, for example, county treasurers, are brought into connection with the land department, and, under certain circumstances, are required to perform certain duties, still such duties are entirely distinct from the ordinary duties of the offices which they hold. “The office of county treasurer, and the office of collector of purchase money of school and university lands, although filled by the same person, are in reality two distinct offices. Although the same person must perform the duties of both offices, he is required to give separate bonds. The duties in each case are entirely distinct. The conditions of the twro bonds are(different. For the special duties imposed upon a county treasurer by G. S. c. 38, only his sureties on the separate bond required by section 39 are answerable. This bond is in no sense merely cumulative, or intended as additional security". Therefore the sureties on the general bond of a county treasurer are not liable for his failure to pay over moneys collected by him on account of school and university bands, under the provisions of G. S. c. 38. State v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 80 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.