Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 U.S. 42 - Eyre v. Potter

Eyre v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis

56 U.S. 42 · 1853

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Babcock (1907), Eva Ingersoll v. Joseph a Coram a H (1908)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states

120185318601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Lessee v. Longworth

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

  1. ““Again, it is ruled that inadequacy of consideration is not of itself a distinct' principle of equity. Tlie common law knows no such principle. The eon-si deration, he it more or less, supports the contract. Common sense knows no such principle. The value of a thing Is what it will produce, and it admits of no precise standard. One man in the disposal of his property may sell it for less than another would If courts of equity were t.o unravel all these transactions, they would throw everything into confusion, and set afloat the contracts of mankind. Sucli a consequence would of itself he sufficient to show the injustice and impracticability of adopting the doctrine that mere inadequacy of consideration should form a distinct ground for relief. Still there may be such an uneonseionableness or inadequacy in a bargain as to demonstrate some gross imposition or some undue influence; and in such cases court* of equity ought to inter fere upon satisfactory ground of fraud; but then, such uneonseionableness or such inadequacy should he made out as would, to use an expressive phrase, shock tlio conscience, and amount in itself to conclusive and decisive evidence of fraud.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When the bill sets up a case of actual fraud and makes that the ground of the prayer for relief, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree by establishing some one or more of the facts, quite independent of fraud, but which might of themselves create a case under a totally distinct head of equity from that which would be applicable to the case of fraud originally stated.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A disposition of property so revolting to common sense and natural affection ought to be looked upon with suspicion”
    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.