Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 U.S. 245 - Texas Pac Ry Co v. Pottorff

Texas Pac Ry Co v. Pottorff’s Empirical Analysis

291 U.S. 245 · 1934

Citation profile

379
cited by 379 later decisions
42
cited 42 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

158 federal appellate · 29 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 379 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Deitrick v. Greaney (1940), Scholes v. Lehmann (1995)

158 federal appellate · 29 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 13 states

2410193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedTexas & P. Ry. Co. v. Pottorff (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Cunningham v. Brown · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Thomas v. Railroad Co. · Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank · Cook Co Nat Bank 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 379 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is the settled doctrine of this court that no rights arise on an ultra vires contract, even though the contract has been performed; and that this conclusion cannot be circumvented by erecting an estoppel which would prevent challenging the legality of a power exercised.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The claimant has the burden of identifying the property in its original or altered form. Schuyler v. Littlefield, 232 U. S. 707 , 34 S. Ct. 466 , 58 L. Ed. 806 . It is not enough to show that at the time of receipt the general assets of the insolvent were increased or that debts were discharged. Wuerpel v. Commercial Germania Bank (C. C. A.) 238 F. 269 , 272, 273; Knauth v. Knight (C. C. A.) 255 F. 677 ; State Bank of Winfield v. Alva Security Bank (C. C. A.) 232 F. 847 ; In re See (C. C. A.) 209 F. 172 ; In re Dorr (C. C. A.) 196 F. 292 ; City Bank v. Blackmore (C. C. A.) 75 F. 771 ; compare St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Spiller, 274 U. S. 304 , 311, 47 S. Ct. 635 , 71 L. Ed. 1060 ; Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U. S. 1 , 44 S. Ct. 424 , 68 L. Ed. 873 .””
    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.