United States v. Zerbey’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 332 · 1926
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably United States v. Mack (1935), General Insurance Co. of America v. City of Colorado Springs (1981)
34 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex parte Lange · Field v. Clark · United States v. Grimaud · Clark v. Barnard · Williamson v. United States
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the Zerbey Cáse, supra, in which it was held that no recovery could be had except upon proof of damage, the bond, as well as the statutory authority for it, was essentially different from the bond sued on here and that enforced in the Dieckerhoff Case, as is apparent from the opinion. The bond there was given in order to secure a permit to sell distilled spirits for other than beverage purposes, and was conditioned that the principal should fully and faithfully comply with all the requirements of the laws of the United States respecting the sale and use of distilled spirits, etc. In pursuance of authority granted by the act,, the Commissioner of Internal.Revenue had prescribed the terms and conditions of the bond, and had adopted and issued two forms — one to be executed by corporate or personal sureties; the other, by the deposit of collateral. The conditions of the two forms were not identical. In the ease of the surety bond the condition was to comply with the laws of the United States, etc. In the ease of the collateral bond the condition was that upon default the collateral so deposited might be sold and the proceeds ■ applied to the payment of any internal revenue taxes, interest, or penalty which might be due. The decision was to the effect that the two bonds were for an identical purpose, and that the condition in the latter should be read into the former, and that, therefore, under the very terms of the bond itself, the obligation was discharged upon the payment ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that if the Principal shall perform said excavating and back-filling operation in accordance with the conditions of said application and approval then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.””
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.