Lambert v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 1961
24 state decisions
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 Murray v. Lardner · Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefendorf · Forbes v. First Nat. Bank of Enid · McPherrin v. Tittle · Security Trust & Savings Bank of Charles City v. Gleichmann
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: “First. That it is complete and regular upon its face; “Second. That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; “Third. That he took it in good faith and for value; “Fourth'.. That at the time it was negotiated to him he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Every holder is deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course; but when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the -title as a holder in due course. But the last mentioned rule does not apply in favor of a party who became bound on the instrument prior to the acquisition of such defective title.” Lambert v. Smith, 53 Okla. 606 , 157 Pac. 909 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““To constitute notice of an infirmity in llie instrument or delect in the title of the person negotiating the same, the person to whom it is negotiated must have had actual knowledge of the infirmity or defect, or knowledge of such facts that his action in taking the instrument amounted to bad faith,””
2 later decisions 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.