Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 U.S. 373 - Bernard Farrar and Joseph Brown v. The United States

Bernard Farrar and Joseph Brown v. The United States’s Empirical Analysis

30 U.S. 373 · 1831

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1915), United States v. Boyd (1847)

11 federal appellate · 5 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 states

11018311840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Dugan Clark v. The United States · Walton v. United States · United States v. Boyd · United States v. Wilkins · The Post Master General of the United States v. Early

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

  1. ““On this state of facts the bill of exceptions asserts three ground's of defense: (1) That the sureties could not be liable at all for the money so paid. (2) That, if at all, they ought to be let into proof that Rector had appropriated the m'oney to his own use before the date of the bond. Or (3) * * * “On these points we feel no difficulty in affirming that for any sums paid to Rector prior to the execution of the bond there is but one ground on which the sureties could be held answerable to the United States, and that is on the assumption that he still held the money in the bank or otherwise. * * * They ought therefore to have been let into proof of the actual state of facts, so vitally important to their defense; * * * since this defense goes, not to discharge a liability incurred, but to' negative its ever existing.””
    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.