Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 U.S. 612 - William Jodson v. William W Corcoran

William Jodson v. William W Corcoran’s Empirical Analysis

58 U.S. 612 · 1854

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
September 1998
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1998 · most notably Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. (1924), McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co. (1945)

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states

140185418601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Cornelius Comegys and Andrew Pettit v. Ambrose Vasse · Bayley v. Greenleaf

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

  1. ““ There may be cases in which a purchaser, by sustaining the character of a bona fide assignee, will be in a better situation than the person was of whom he bought; as, for instance, -where the purchaser, who alone had made inquiry and given notice to the debtor, or to a trustee holding the fund, (as in this instance,) would be preferred over the prior purchaser who neglected to give notice of his assignment and warn others not to buy.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Ajssuming that both sets of assignments are alike fair, and originally stood on the same bona fide footing, the rule of necessity is, that the assignor having parted with his interest in the first assignment, the second assignee could take nothing; and, as he represents his assignor, is bound by the equities imposed on the latter; and hence has arisen the maxim in such cases, that he who is first in time is best in right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the equities being equal, the law must prevail.”
    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.