Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 MICH 515 - Kost v. Bender

Kost v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis

1872

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
17
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably People v. Seaman (1895), Culley v. Jones (1905)

3 federal appellate · 40 state decisions — followed in 17 states

13018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““It is perfectly true as a general rule, that the bona fide holder of negotiable paper has a right to sell the same, with all the rights and equities attaching to it in his own hands, to whoever may see fit to buy of him, whether such purchaser was aware of the original infirmity or not. Without this right he would not have the full protection which the law ■merchant designs to afford him, and negotiable paper would cease to be a safe and reliable medium for the exchanges of commerce. For, if one can .stop the negotiability of paper against which there is no defense, by giving notice that a defense once existed while it was held by another, it is obvious that an important element in its value is at once taken away.” Kost v. Bender, 25 Mich. 515 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “.“If the defendant had a legal and just defense to the note, either In whole or in part, arising from the conduct of the plaintiff, it was the duty of the latter to recognize and allow it, and he had no moral right to cut it off, or to attempt to do so by any transfer. But haying done so, and afterwards acquired the note a second time, the law, we think, will not permit him to take advantage of this wrong, but will.remit the defendant to his original rights.””
    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.