Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 U.S. 27 - Graham v. White-Phillips Co.

Graham v. White-Phillips Co.’s Empirical Analysis

296 U.S. 27 · 1935

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 9 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1940), Blair v. Commissioner (1937)

40 federal appellate · 9 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 states

240193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Shaw v. Railroad Co. · Timothy Goodman v. John Simonds · Murray v. Lardner · Burns Mortgage Co. v. Fried

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

  1. ““To constitute notice of an infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The court below rightly concluded that the narrow question is this: ‘Did appellant have actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that its action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith ? ’ It ruled that as a purchaser of negotiable instruments in good faith, before maturity and for a valuable consideration, respondent should be protected against a charge of bad faith which has no fact support other than the receipt of a notice circulated generally among dealers which stated that certain bonds of a large issue had been stolen.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““As far as we have been able to determine, this case (Illinois ease) stands alone. It estops the purchaser from showing good faith at the time the bonds are acquired. It makes notice of theft constructive evidence of mala fides. It overlooks the well established rule that though one has received actual notice, if by forgetfulness or negligence he does not have it in mind when he acquires the bonds, he may still be a good faith purchaser.””
    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.