Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 411 F.2d 718 - Beatrice R. Ruddle v. Luke C. Moore

Beatrice R. Ruddle v. Luke C. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

411 F.2d 718 · 1969

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
March 2025
most recently cited

8 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2025

8 federal appellate ·

601969197019801990200020102020decided

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 Cunningham v. Brown · Empire State Surety Co. v. Carroll County · Brown v. Christman · In re Bolognesi

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

  1. “The rule in Clayton’s Case is to allocate the payments upon an account. Some rule had to be adopted, and though any presumption of intent was a fiction, priority in time was the most natural basis of allocation. It has no relevancy whatever to a case like this. Here two people are jointly interested in a fund held for them by a common trustee. There is no reason in law or justice why his depredations upon the fund should not be borne equally between them. To throw all the loss upon one, through the mere chance of his being earlier in time, is irrational and arbitrary, and is equally a fiction as the rule in Clayton’s Case, supra. When the law adopts a fiction, it is, or at least it should be, for some purpose of justice. To adopt it here is to apportion a common misfortune through a test which has no relation whatever to the justice of the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “has nothing to be said for it as a principle governing conflicting claims to restitution by equally wronged parties”
    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.