Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 U.S. 87 - Kendall v. Stokes

Kendall v. Stokes’s Empirical Analysis

44 U.S. 87 · 1845

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
November 1990
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 12 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1990 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Butz v. Economou (1978)

34 federal appellate · 12 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 20 states

1601845185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · Hopkins v. Lee · Yates v. Lansing · Yates v. Lansing

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

  1. “[b]ut a public officer is not liable to an action if he falls into error in a case where the act to be done is not merely a ministerial one, but is one in relation to which it is his duty to exercise judgment and discretion”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We the jurors empanelled in the case of Wm. B. Stokes and others vs. Amos Kendall, and in which case we have this day rendered our verdict for the plaintiffs for $11,000, de hereby certify that said verdict was not founded on any idea that the defendant performed the acts complained of by the plaintiffs, and for which we gave damages as above stated, with any intent other than a desire faithfully to perform the duties of his office of Postmaster-General, and protect the public interests committed to his charge, but the said damages were given by us on the ground that the acts complained of were illegal, and that the said sum of $11,000 was the amount of actual damage to plaintiffs, estimated by us to have resulted from said illegal acts.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a public officer, acting to the best of his judgment and from a sense of duty, in a matter of account with an individual [is not] liable in an action for an error of judgment.”
    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.