Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 F.1d 88 - Ferguson v. Dent

Ferguson v. Dent’s Empirical Analysis

46 F. 88 · 1891

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 1958
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1958

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

601891190019101920193019401950decided

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 Trustees v. Greenough · Central Railroad Banking Co of Georgia v. Pettus · Dent v. Ferguson · Wooster v. Handy · Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Marsh

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

  1. ““When it becomes the duty of a court of equity to take property under its own charge through a receiver, the property becomes chargeable with the necessary expenses Incurred in taking care of and saving it, including the allowance to the receiver for his services, buch is unquestionably the well-settled law, and a citation of authorities in support of it would seem to be needless. Mo case to the contrary has been cited by counsel, nor any in support of their position, except those heretofore noticed; and it Is believed that not one decision can be found holding that the proper expenses of a receiver, or his compensation, shall be faxed as costs against the losing party, where his appointment was proper and legal, and made by a court in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, and where tlie fund in his hands is sufficient, to pay the same. Mor does the legality or propriety of his appointment depend at all upon the event of the suit. Because it is ultimately determined that the plaintiff in action is not entitled to recover or to the relief he seeks, non consta,t that the action of the court or the conduct of the parties in the appointment of the receiver has been irregular, improper, erroneous, or unnecessary.””
    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.