Stockton v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
52 U.S. 232 · 1850
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Ambach v. Norwick (1979), Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz (1992)
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Jackson ex dem. M'Crea v. Bartlett · Kellogg v. Gilbert · Beardsley v. Root · Jackson ex dem. Gillespy v. Woolsey
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are few of the business relations of life involving a higher trust and confidence than those of attorney and client or, generally speaking, one more honorably and faithfully discharged; few more anxiously guarded by the law, or governed by sterner principles of morality and justice; and it is the duty of the court to administer them in a corresponding spirit, and to be watchful and industrious, to see that confidence thus reposed shall not be used to the detriment or prejudice of the rights of the party bestowing it.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"There is another ground of defense sot up in the pleadings, and supported by tlio proofs, which has not been satisfactorily answered. And that is that the plaintiff was the attorney of Pryor in the judgment against Ford, employed, to enforce its collection; and while holding this relation to him, and after the assignment of .Tones to the latter, he became the purchaser in his own name, without communicating the fact to ills client, and obtaining his consent. Holding this relation to Tones at the time of the purchase, it was his duty to have advised him of the seizure and sale, so as to have enabled him to prevent a sacrifice of the judgment on the sale; and, having not only neglected to do this, hut having purchased the judgment himself, a court of equity will fasten upon the purchase a trust for the benefit of the client.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanwood v. Wishard
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.