Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 U.S. 299 - The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Louisa Seton

The Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Louisa Seton’s Empirical Analysis

26 U.S. 299 · 1828

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably In re Ayers (1887), Howard v. Stillwell Bierce Manuf'G Co (1891)

12 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 13 states

9018281830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Union Bank v. Laird

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

  1. ““The general rule as to parties undoubtedly is that, when a bill is brought for relief all persons materially interested in the subject of the suit ought to be made parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants, in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and that there may be a complete and final decree between all the parties interested. But this is a rule established for the convenient administration of justice, and is subject to many exceptions, and is more or less a matter of discretion in the court.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Notice to the board of directors, when this stock was transferred to Lynn, that he held it as trustee only, was notice to the bank; and no subsequent change of directors could require a new notice of this fact. So that if the bank had sustained any injury, by reason of a subsequent board not knowing that Lynn held the stock in trust, it would result from the negligence of its own agents, and could not be visited upon the complainants.”
    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.