Lanum v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2005
3 federal appellate · 7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Chicago Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. · Hayes v. Wagner · Dorsey v. Wolff · Hume Bros. v. Moss · Anderson v. McCormick
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o contract or agreement constitutes a promissory note which does not provide for payment absolutely and unconditionally. If payment depends upon a contingency that may never happen, it is not a promissory note.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a written promise by one person to pay another person therein named, or order, a fixed sum of money at all events and at a time specified therein or at a time which must certainly arrive.”
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.