Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 F.1d 641 - Miller v. Rush

Miller v. Rush’s Empirical Analysis

276 F. 641 · 1921

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
July 1939
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Wood v. Carpenter · Grymes v. Sanders · Shappirio v. Goldberg · Ming v. Woolfolk · Rugan v. Sabin

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

  1. ““Nor can a vendor industriously close his eyes, stop his ears, or refuse to believe the evidence of his senses, when notice of the fraudulent practices of a purchaser is placed before him, and thus escape from the application and effect of this principle of law. Notice of faets and circumstances which would put a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry is, in the eye of the law, equivalent to knowledge of all the faets a reasonably diligent inquiry would disclose.””
    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.