Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 U.S. 263 - William Bend v. Jesse Hoyt

William Bend v. Jesse Hoyt’s Empirical Analysis

38 U.S. 263 · 1839

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Flora v. United States (1960), Ex parte Grossman (1925)

13 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions

18018391840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. “Now, it is the duty of Courts of Justice so to construe all statutes as to give full effect to all the words in their ordinary sense, if this can be properly done; and thus to preserve the harmony of all the provisions.”). 37 . See, e.g., Eyer, 113 F.3d at 473 (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The question then arises, whether this action is maintainable, not under' ordinary circumstances of innocent mistake, but under circumstances of culpable negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and when the government can no longer be replaced in tbe same situation in which it stood at the time of the original transaction. Upon the best consideration which we can give to the subject, we are of the opinion, that the action, under such circumstances, is not maintainable. * * * The consignee had his choice, at the time of the entry, either to rely on his invoice, or to have the contents of each package examined. He chose the former; and the latter is, on the part of the government no longer practicable — at least, not so far as to be satisfactory or certain in its results. The error, if any there has been, has arisen, as we have already stated, from his own culpable negligence. * * * Even courts of equity will not interefere to assist a party to obtain redress for an injury which he might by ordinary diligence have avoided; and, a fortiori, a court of law ought not, where the other party has, by the very acts or ommissions, lost his own proper rights or advantages.* * * Here, by the conduct, and solemn affirmations, under oath, of the plaintiff, the position of the United States has been etirely changed; the property has been delivered up from the custody of the government, without any search or examination, in the perfect confidence that all was right; and we think the plaint”
    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.