Kendall v. Ewert’s Empirical Analysis
259 U.S. 139 · 1922
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably Aetna Insurance v. Hyde (1928), Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery (1932)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Camp v. Gress · Cole v. Ralph · Chappell v. United States · United States v. Noble · County of Dakota v. Glidden
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence of competency, entirely clear, should be required to sustain a transaction in which a common habitual drunkard has been overreached by a competent and aggressive person. * * * “Without further discussion of the evidence, it is sufficient to say that, while the witnesses differ as to whether Red-eagle had deteriorated to the point of being incompetent to do business when temporarily sober, they all agree, and the district judge agrees with them, that, long before the stipulation for dismissal was signed, he had come to be generally regarded as a common, an habitual, drunkard, and we think the circuit court of appeals failed to give the weight to this fact which it deserves. That habitual drunkards are not competent to prop erly transact business is so widely recognized in the law that in many states statutes provide for placing them under a guardian or committee, with authority to put restraint upon them and to preserve their property, not less for themselves than for those dependent upon them. * * * “The extent to which one must have fallen below the standard of ordinary business capacity before he will be generally recognized in a community as a common drunkard is so notorious that we do not hesitate to say that evidence of competency entirely clear should be required to sustain a transaction in which such a person has plainly, as in this case, been overreached by a person dealing with him who is competent and aggressive. Men so reduced will sacrifice their propert”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tindel v. Williams
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.