Seeman v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co.’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 403 · 1927
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 27 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green (1946), Boseman v. Connecticut General Life Insurance (1937)
70 federal appellate · 27 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · In re Loney · Andrews v. Pond · Bedford v. Eastern Building Loan Association of Syracuse
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As thus stated, the qualification, if taken too literally, would destroy the (rule itself) for (it) obviously (is) to be invoked only to save the contract from the operation of the usury laws of one jurisdiction or the other. The effect of the qualification is merely to prevent the evasion or avoidance at will of the usury law otherwise applicable, by the parties' entering into the contract or stipulating for its performance at a place which has no normal relation to the transaction and to whose law they otherwise would not be subject. Wharton, . . . in discussing this qualification, says:”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“upholding contractual obligations assumed in good faith”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The general principle in relation to contracts made in one place, to be executed in another, is well settled. They are to be governed by the law of the place of performance, and if the interest allowed by the laws of the place of performance is higher than that permitted at the place of the contract, the parties may stipulate for the higher interest, without incurring the penalties of usury.'”
4 later decisions 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.