Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 F.1d 97 - Bangs v. Hornick

Bangs v. Hornick’s Empirical Analysis

30 F. 97 · 1887

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 1983
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1983

1 district · 3 state decisions

2018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Irwin v. Williar · Kirkpatrick v. Adams · Bartlett v. Smith

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

  1. ““Counsel for defendant say that it is the absolute duty of the court to denounce this transaction, unless it clearly appears that it was a valid and honest one. I think the duty of the court is precisely the reverse, and that it is the duty of the court to uphold it, unless it appears that it was an invalid and dishonest one. ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.