Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 WIS 250 - Noyes v. State

Noyes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1879

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
8
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2020

18 state decisions

301879188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

  1. ““ The second count of the complaint seeks to recover several license fees exacted and paid under such void provisions by persons employed by the plaintiff’s firm as peddlers, to sell goods of the firm. So far as such payments may have been voluntary, they cannot be recovered back. Van Buren v. Downing, 41 Wis. 122 . But so far as they were made under duress or menace equivalent to duress by public officers, they constitute a valid claim against the State. Matheson v. Town of Mazomanie, 20 Wis. 201; Kellogg v. Supervisors, 42 Wis. 97 ; Allen v. City of Burlington, 45 Vt. 202 ; Atwell v. Zeluff, 26 Mich. 118 ; Bank v. City of New York, 43 N. Y. 184 ; Bank v. City of New York, 51 N. Y. 638 , reversing s. c. 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 159. “Prima facie, the right of action to recover back each license fee under duress or menace would be in the peddler who paid it. Although the peddlers from whom the license fees set forth in the count were exacted, may have been employed by the plaintiff’s firm, yet in their relations to the State they were mere peddlers, each in his individual capacity and right. The license fee of each, by whomsoever actually paid, was necessarily paid in the name and .right of the peddler who took the license. And the duress or menace which could make the payment involuntary should apparently be of the peddler himself. It is not apparent how duress or menace of the plaintiff’s firm could affect the payment of the peddler. “An assignment by the plaintiff’s partner is ave”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “As a rule, costs are given to the prevailing party in civil actions. And the statutes giving them, might include the state, when it sues or permits itself to be sued in civil actions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “At the common law, costs were unknown. Costs are altogether the creature of statute.”
    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.