Lacey v. Davis & McFarren’s Empirical Analysis
1856
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1948 · most notably Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett (1921), Case v. Dean (1867)
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Bartlett v. Lang's Adm'rs
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In personal actions against the collector and others for collecting or attempting .to collect such tax, courts have held that when the tax was divisible, and the excess could be ascertained, such excess might be rejected, and the balance of the tax held good, but that principle has no application to cases of ejectment where the validity of the title depends upon the validity of the tax and subsequent proceedings, and where from th"e very nature of things there can be no separation of the good from the bad. It is only applicable in personal actions or in direct proceedings to collect the .tax and does not operate upon property acquired upon tax sale.””
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.