Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 U.S. 72 - Chesbrough v. Woodworth

Chesbrough v. Woodworth’s Empirical Analysis

244 U.S. 72 · 1917

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Harmsen v. Smith (1982), Morast v. Lance (1987)

58 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions

36019171920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedChesbrough v. Woodworth (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Yates v. Jones National Bank · Herrmann v. Edwards · Thomas v. Taylor · Jones National Bank v. Yates

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

  1. “every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal and individual capacity for all damages which the association, its shareholders, or any other person, shall have sustained in consequence of such violation.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is exclusive and precludes a common-law liability for fraud and deceit.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The making and publishing of the reports are not merely for the information of the comptroller, but are to guide so much of the public as may have occasion to act thereon, and he who buys from another stock in the bank, in reliance upon a false report of its condition, and suffers damage thereby, has a right of action under R.S. § 5239, against any officer or director who, knowing its falsity, authorizes such report. The one suffering such damages is within the statutory description any other person.””
    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.