Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 U.S. 184 - The United States Vanzandt

The United States Vanzandt’s Empirical Analysis

24 U.S. 184 · 1826

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
November 1955
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1955 · most notably United States v. Beebe (1901), United States v. State of Minnesota (1926)

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 14 states

10018261830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 United States v. Kirkpatrick

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

  1. ““Then, as to tbe point of laches, we are of opinion that the charge of the court below, which supposes that laches will discharge the bond, cannot be maintained as law. The general principle is that laches is not imputable to the government; and this maxim is founded, not in the notion of extraordinary prerogative, but upon a great public policy. The government can transact its business only through its agents; and its fiscal operations are so various, and its agencies so numerous and scattered, that the utmost vigilance would not save the public from the most serious losses, if the doctrine of laches can be applied to its transactions. It would, in effect, work a repeal of all its securities.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘•The neglect in the one case and in the other imputes laches to the officer whose duty it was to perform the acts which the law required; but in a legal point of view the rights of the government cannot be affected by these laches. The provisions in both laws are merely directory to the officers, and intended for the .security and x»rotection of government, by insuring punctuality and responsibility; but they form no part of the contract with the surety.””
    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.