Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 U.S. 738 - United States v. Equitable Trust Co.

United States v. Equitable Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

283 U.S. 738 · 1931

Citation profile

217
cited by 217 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 217 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975), Coca-Cola Company v. Tropicana Products Inc (1982)

86 federal appellate · 12 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 14 states

6401931194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBarnett v. Equitable Trust Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Trustees v. Greenough · Phillips v. Commissioner · Central Railroad Banking Co of Georgia v. Pettus · James Sackley Company v. United States · New York Dock Co v. The Poznan

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

  1. “It is a general rule in courts of equity that a trust fund which has been recovered or preserved through their intervention may be charged with the costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in that behalf; and this rule is deemed specially applicable where the fund belongs to an infant or incompetent who is represented in litigation by a next friend.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The district court apparently included some [fees from] services in other litigation ... But the circuit court of appeals excluded them, and we think its action was right. The nature of the other litigation was such that it could neither disturb the prosecution of this suit nor affect the outcome.””
    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.