Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 442 - Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. McKey

Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. McKey’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 442 · 1935

Citation profile

225
cited by 225 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 18 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 225 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Maggio v. Zeitz (1948), Schacht v. United States (1970)

60 federal appellate · 18 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 states

440193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Fosdick v. Schall · Hedges v. Dixon County · Brine v. Insurance Co. · Twist v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co.

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

  1. “'The mere fact that a party is obliged to go into a federal court of equity to enforce an essentially legal right arising upon a contract valid and unassailable under controlling state law does not authorize that court to modify or ignore the terms of the legal obligation upon the claim, or because the court thinks, that these terms are harsh or oppressive or unreasonable.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As already appears from what has been said, the decrees below rest wholly on the untenable assumption that petitioner’s rights are subject to denial or curtailment in virtue of equitable principles applicable only against one who affirmatively has sought equitable relief; and here that was not the case. The question, or extent, of petitioner’s legal rights, relieved of this assumption, has been neither determined nor considered upon the facts or the applicable law.”
    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.