Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 U.S. 103 - Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy

Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy’s Empirical Analysis

24 U.S. 103 · 1826

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2007 · most notably Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. (1909), United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. (1888)

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 26 states

2001826183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Smith v. McIver · Boyd v. Stone · Marshall v. Beverley · Hughes v. Moore

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

  1. ““If these deeds were obtained by the exercise .of undue influence over a man whose mind had ceased to be a safe guide of his action, it is against conscience for him who has obtained them to derive any advantage from them. It is the peculiar province of a court of conscience to set them aside. That a court of equity will interpose, in such case, is among its best settled principles.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It may be observed, generally, tliat it is not the province of a court to investigate items of an account. The report of the master is received as true when no exception is taken, and the exceptions are to be regarded so far only as they are supported by the special statements of the master, or by evidence, which ought to be brought before the court by a reference to the" particular testimony on which the exceptor relies. Were it otherwise, were the court to look into the immense mass of testimony laid before the commissioner, the reference to him would be of little avail. Such testimony, indeed, need not be reported further than it is relied on to support, explain, or oppose a particular exception.””
    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.